A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

35mm film VS digital



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 28th 08, 03:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
danny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default 35mm film VS digital


"Bob Donahue" wrote in message
. ..
Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
(Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
film.)


Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.
Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.

I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
is pretty obvious.


  #22  
Old August 28th 08, 03:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default 35mm film VS digital

danny wrote:
"Bob Donahue" wrote in message
. ..
Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the
current crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color
print film. (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown
up from 35mm film.)


Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at
9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.

I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The
answer is pretty obvious.


You are mistaking the arbitrary "DPI" number placed into the JPEG file by
some software with the actual resolution of the cameras. The Nikon D3,
for example, has a pixel pitch of 4256 / 36 pixels per mm, i.e. 118
pixels/mm, or 3003 pixels per inch.

David


  #23  
Old August 28th 08, 04:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default 35mm film VS digital

In article , danny
wrote:

Film is still better than digital.


only with specialized film in specific situations. otherwise, digital
is *much* better than film.

You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.


if there's no detail in the film, it doesn't matter how high you scan.

Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.


no, most digital cameras just write a number (usually 72, sometimes
300). it's meaningless. dpi doesn't matter until you print, at which
point it can be calculated.

I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
is pretty obvious.


what's obvious is that you don't understand what you're looking at.
  #25  
Old August 28th 08, 04:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J. Littleboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,618
Default 35mm film VS digital


"David J Taylor"
wrote:
danny wrote:

Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at
9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.

I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The
answer is pretty obvious.


You are mistaking the arbitrary "DPI" number placed into the JPEG file by


David, please. Take a deep breath, calm down, and go get your sense of humor
back from the dog, who seems to have run off with it.

--
David J. Littleboy
Who is usually pretty humorless himself in
Tokyo, Japan


  #26  
Old August 28th 08, 04:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Jürgen Exner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,579
Default 35mm film VS digital

"danny" wrote:

"Bob Donahue" wrote in message
...
Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
(Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
film.)


Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.


Actually that's SPI (Samples Per Inch), something _very_ different from
DPI.

DPI is a property of an _OUTPUT_ device, e.g. a printer or a monitor.
It is also (incorrectly?) used to indirectly indicate the size of an
original document when scanned (300DPI, 3000x2000 pixel == the original
document was 10x6 inches).

Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.


Which of course is totally meaningless and only a placeholder, because
traditionally some value had to be put in that field for the benefit of
some programs that otherwise will crash.
It is totally up to you if you display that digital photo on a mega-TV
with 20DPI, an electronic billboard with 0.1DPI or a miniature display
with 600DPI.

I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
is pretty obvious.


Apples and cars (no, not even oranges). Those two numbers have nothing
to do with each other.

jue
  #27  
Old August 28th 08, 05:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default 35mm film VS digital

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote:
danny wrote:

Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at
9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.

I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The
answer is pretty obvious.


You are mistaking the arbitrary "DPI" number placed into the JPEG
file by


David, please. Take a deep breath, calm down, and go get your sense
of humor back from the dog, who seems to have run off with it.


.... and there was I thinking that the OP might actually not have
understood!

Dang!

No dogs here, BTW. Nor humour in the OPs post.

David


  #28  
Old August 28th 08, 06:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default 35mm film VS digital

"danny" wrote:
Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.
Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.

I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
is pretty obvious.


The scanned 9600 DPI image will not have better resolution than
the negative, and the 35mm negative doesn't have as much
resolution as a modern 35mm sized electronic sensor.

Further, the DPI resolution listed in the Exif data on digital
cameras has no relationship to image resolution. It only a way
to automatically determine a size for printing (by dividing the
pixel dimensions by the DPI value), but it is usually ignored.

If you would like I can produce an image from a Nikon D3 (which
natively puts "300" in the Exif data for X and Y resolution)
that has been changed to 100,000 DPI. It will still be exactly
the same image though... and technically (with 4288 pixels
across on a 1.42" wide sensor) is about 3020 DPI, but of course
just as the film negative does not have that much resolution,
neither does the image recorded by the electronic sensor.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #29  
Old August 28th 08, 09:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
measekite
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default 35mm film VS digital



danny wrote:
"Bob Donahue" wrote in message
. ..

Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
(Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
film.)


Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.
Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.


The image is converted to 72dpi by the editor by increasing the length x
width.
I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
is pretty obvious.



  #30  
Old August 28th 08, 10:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default 35mm film VS digital

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"danny" wrote:
Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.
Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.

I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
is pretty obvious.


The scanned 9600 DPI image will not have better resolution than
the negative, and the 35mm negative doesn't have as much
resolution as a modern 35mm sized electronic sensor.

Further, the DPI resolution listed in the Exif data on digital
cameras has no relationship to image resolution. It only a way
to automatically determine a size for printing (by dividing the
pixel dimensions by the DPI value), but it is usually ignored.

If you would like I can produce an image from a Nikon D3 (which
natively puts "300" in the Exif data for X and Y resolution)
that has been changed to 100,000 DPI. It will still be exactly
the same image though... and technically (with 4288 pixels
across on a 1.42" wide sensor) is about 3020 DPI, but of course
just as the film negative does not have that much resolution,
neither does the image recorded by the electronic sensor.


You'd have sounded a bit more authoritative if you'd have used the
correct term in the last paragraph, "PPI".

--
john mcwilliams
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
35mm film vs Digital..what is the difference? Marion 35mm Photo Equipment 252 January 3rd 07 01:08 AM
35mm Film vs Digital again Graham Fountain 35mm Photo Equipment 23 December 22nd 05 05:45 AM
Digital images to 35mm slide film Malevil Digital SLR Cameras 3 March 13th 05 07:07 AM
35mm film vs digital Conrad Weiler Digital Photography 49 January 5th 05 05:01 AM
Developing 35mm film into digital Stuart Droker Film & Labs 1 September 20th 04 04:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.