Digital Friendly New Films, With Planarized Color Elements Like CCD rray

Actually, there is one film that comes close to fitting that very
description, Kodak Portra 400BW, a chromogenic black and white film. The
while orange masked, the film is apparently designed specifically to be
scanned.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Joe Pucillo wrote:


Another question: why do they have all those commercials for
high-def TVs? The picture on those sets are no better than the
low-def set I'm watching the commercial on!



Exactly, take film and "dumb it down" using the same "home quality" output
used for most digicam shots and of course they are going to look the same,
just like a high def TV commercial isn't going to look "high def" of a low
def TV. Since the printers can only deal with so many DPI at this time,
they are the bottle neck. Whatever you feed into most printers is going to
be limited by the printer, especially inkjets. I've used scanned 4X5
negatives vs scanned 6X4.5 images printed 8x10 on an inkjet and the 4X5
looks no better. Printed in the darkroom the difference is obvious.

I do agree with the OP that film is going/needs to become more "digital
friendly" and I wouldn't be surprized to see color negative film that is
-only- scanable without the orange mask used for analog printing etc.

--

Stacey

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..
Einton Newstein wrote:

Why a Canon DSLR of only 3k x 2k @ 32-bit RGB out performs a film
scanned to the same resolution and same color depth? The grain factor?

Huh? In noise I agree, but in detail I do not.

That's exactly what every technically competent web page that discusses the
issue says. 6MP comes out at about 70% of Provia/Velvia for detail. It takes
12MP digital to beat 35mm film.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Gordon Moat" wrote:
Intuitively the digital camera
should be inferior, quite opposite to the current observation. There
are arbuments pointed to the grain noise factor in the film.

Only a few articles have actually tested the resolution of imaging chips,
and they work out near 50 lp/mm at best.

You can calculate the lp/mm from the resolution charts. I seem to remember
getting 40 lp/mm for the 1Ds and 55 lp/mm for the 10D.

Getting that resolution, or
better, on film should not be too difficult.

We've been through this before.

Everyone who has compared the 1Ds (40 lp/mm) to 35mm by actually looking at
real-world images has found the 1Ds far better. (Although the 6MP cameras
are not as good as 35mm film.)

My theory here is that when people test "resolution" of film, they look at
limiting resolution where the MTF is so low (and the grain noise so gross)
as to be insignificant for imaging. With digital, the limiting resolution
happens at a point much closer to places where usefully high MTF remains.
And of course, there's no image noise.

Colour is another issue, as
is grain or noise. Also, many who complain about grain judge it on a
computer monitor; and often the the grain that can show on a monitor will
be absent in the final print.

Grain in scans gets in the way when one tries to sharpen, so getting useful
image contrast from the low-contrast parts of the image that you can see on
the film and in the scan on the monitor is harder with film.

Another issue is aesthetic considerations. While a direct digital image
may lack fine tonal details, it can often provide a pleasing or
compelling image. Many of us like paintings, yet they are decidedly low
resolution. Interesting and compelling images have been made in the past
on film, and there should be little reason to think that should not
continue; and the same should be true for direct digital imagery.

Yes. But to my eye, by the time you get to 12MP with current A4 inkjets, you
have a photographic system that is a lot better than 35mm, however you print
the 35mm.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article ,
(Einton Newstein) wrote:

[snip]

Hi Einton Newstein, who are you? the child of Newton and Einstein? I
dodn't know they were gay, and I thought they never met each other
(except, maybe, in heaven?).

Thanks for the suggestion, now I tweak it a little bit.

My plan is to produce a 6x6 color slide of the Bayer pattern, but with
differnt shape for the R/G/B masking elements, then place it right in
front of the Hasselblad's film back. It will be used to shoot onto a
Agfa 25 (I'm glad I still keep some since it was discontinued). Of
course I need to overcome the problems to write a program to imitate
digital camera's image analysis & construction process. I hope I can
find some shareware/leverage somewhere from the web.

Hope I can answer my own questions:

1. "Not all pixels are born equal, but why digital camera's seems
somewhat superior"
2. "What can be done to make the film more digital freidnly, or
keep exceeding the digital cameras".



Gordon Moat wrote in message ...
If so, let's imitate what the digital camera does. If a film is made
like a chemical color sensors, would it make it more digital friendly?
and perhapes claim back the ground?

If I understand what you are suggesting, then placing a Bayer pattern in
front of film should allow an emulation of direct digital imaging.
Another test might be to place a micro lens array in front of the film.
My guess is that either method, or both, would degrade the film image.

David J. Littleboy wrote:


"Neil Gould" wrote:


I am really happy to see someone else saying this for a change. Ink jets
are not a basis for creating or judging high-quality images.

It sounds like you guys haven't seen any inkjet prints in the last 5
years.


Why do digital fans always claim this.


Have -you- had any real cibachromes (The ultra glossy on polyester base
kind, not the cheap-o "prints from slides" type R paper kind or
internegative printing) from the newest fine grained slide film? Yes film
has gotten better since the last time you had an analog print made as well.

And no, we aren't a bunch of ignorant people with our heads stuck in the
sand. The newest inkjets are better (good enough?) but they aren't "the
end" for high quality imaging.


--

Stacey

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote:
Intuitively the digital camera
should be inferior, quite opposite to the current observation. There
are arbuments pointed to the grain noise factor in the film.

Only a few articles have actually tested the resolution of imaging chips,
and they work out near 50 lp/mm at best.

You can calculate the lp/mm from the resolution charts. I seem to remember
getting 40 lp/mm for the 1Ds and 55 lp/mm for the 10D.

Sure, resolution over the chip area, or using dimensions in millimetres.



Getting that resolution, or
better, on film should not be too difficult.

We've been through this before.

Everyone who has compared the 1Ds (40 lp/mm) to 35mm by actually looking at
real-world images has found the 1Ds far better. (Although the 6MP cameras
are not as good as 35mm film.)

Which brings the printing method into the equation. While many of these
observers judge on inkjet, or similar outputs, the print is the true
comparison. You have ot remember that I work in the commercial printing and
publishing industry, and that type of printed output is far beyond the high dot
gain of pieziography.

Regardless, real world images should be the mark of judgement, and not
resolution charts. If we still enjoy the film images of the past, then why
would we not enjoy them in the future?



My theory here is that when people test "resolution" of film, they look at
limiting resolution where the MTF is so low (and the grain noise so gross)
as to be insignificant for imaging. With digital, the limiting resolution
happens at a point much closer to places where usefully high MTF remains.
And of course, there's no image noise.


I will challenge your no noise issue. I have seen too many imaging chip sourced
images showing noise. While it is possible to avoid it, it cannot be done in
all shooting situations. Also, any post processing of direct digital images
could also be done with scanned film images, so that factor cancels out that
type of comparison.


Colour is another issue, as
is grain or noise. Also, many who complain about grain judge it on a
computer monitor; and often the the grain that can show on a monitor will
be absent in the final print.

Grain in scans gets in the way when one tries to sharpen, so getting useful
image contrast from the low-contrast parts of the image that you can see on
the film and in the scan on the monitor is harder with film.

You have to make a determination of why, when, and how much to sharpen,
unsharpen, or blur. If it was always needed, then it would not be a choice in
PhotoShop, rather an automated action. If you only do inkjet printing, then it
is needed the majority of the time, and attempted to minimize the problems of
the high dot gain of those systems.

I have seen noise (grain?) in direct digital images and scanned film when
viewed on a computer monitor. I have also seen many of the same files print
with absolutely no indication of noise. Any ideas why that is true?



Another issue is aesthetic considerations. While a direct digital image
may lack fine tonal details, it can often provide a pleasing or
compelling image. Many of us like paintings, yet they are decidedly low
resolution. Interesting and compelling images have been made in the past
on film, and there should be little reason to think that should not
continue; and the same should be true for direct digital imagery.

Yes. But to my eye, by the time you get to 12MP with current A4 inkjets, you
have a photographic system that is a lot better than 35mm, however you print
the 35mm.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Okay, the qualifier is that you are going for the best match for an inkjet
system output. In that regard, I would agree the direct digital capture is
better for most people when outputting to inkjet. It is easier, involves less
guessing, and is faster. Scanning film and adjusting for proper printed output
is a skill honed by experience.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Some films do scan better than others. I'm not sure, but it probably has to
do with how the dyes respond to the scanner illumination. I find that Kodak
Portra 160NC and 400NC are excellent for scanning. They need almost no
correction for printing. The Fuji products are more difficult, but you can
usually get a good picture with a little work. Some of the older Kodak
amateur products can be quite difficult.

"Einton Newstein" wrote in message
m...
Why a Canon DSLR of only 3k x 2k @ 32-bit RGB out performs a film
scanned to the same resolution and same color depth? The grain factor?

The tradistional film has the layered color sensor, unlike the digital
camera that has planarized color array. Intuitively the digital camera
should be inferior, quite opposite to the current observation. There
are arbuments pointed to the grain noise factor in the film.

If so, let's imitate what the digital camera does. If a film is made
like a chemical color sensors, would it make it more digital friendly?
and perhapes claim back the ground?

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Yes. But to my eye, by the time you get to 12MP with current A4
inkjets, you have a photographic system that is a lot better than
35mm, however you print the 35mm.

Okay, the qualifier is that you are going for the best match for an
inkjet system output. In that regard, I would agree the direct
digital capture is better for most people when outputting to inkjet.
It is easier, involves less guessing, and is faster. Scanning film
and adjusting for proper printed output is a skill honed by
experience.

I am really happy to see someone else saying this for a change. Ink jets
are not a basis for creating or judging high-quality images.

Regards,

--
Neil Gould
--------------------------------------
Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media

"Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Yes. But to my eye, by the time you get to 12MP with current A4
inkjets, you have a photographic system that is a lot better than
35mm, however you print the 35mm.

Okay, the qualifier is that you are going for the best match for an
inkjet system output. In that regard, I would agree the direct
digital capture is better for most people when outputting to inkjet.
It is easier, involves less guessing, and is faster. Scanning film
and adjusting for proper printed output is a skill honed by
experience.

I am really happy to see someone else saying this for a change. Ink jets
are not a basis for creating or judging high-quality images.

It sounds like you guys haven't seen any inkjet prints in the last 5 years.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan