35mm film VS digital

John McWilliams wrote:
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
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".
Who cares? (Incidentally, PPI is not correct for the
sensor either!)

Nice, sideways take on your admitting- as close as you can- to being
wrong. And I didn't mention sensels or sensors.

More of your ego talk.

I was not wrong; I was simply trying to speak to the level that
the OP would understand, rather than argue silly points that
have no significance or try to "sound" authoritative, both of
which are a waste of time.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Hmmmmmm.....

Now that the last few Fuji Finepix S5 DSLRs are left in the shops, I wonder
have we come to the end for cameras that can deliver 'film like' richly
gradated images witha good dynamic range?

After all, images from conventional DSLRS seem to resemble sldes rather than
images derived from film negatives, it seems a pity to me that a camera such
as the Fuji Finepix S5 has been, or is being discontinued. It would be nice
to think there were still DSLRS available which were capable of providing a
wide dynamic range.

Personally I use Nikon DSLRs and keep a Finepix S5 mainly for portraiture.
Even with Nikon's proprietary D-Lighting emnabled, the Fuji images are
always more tonal.
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
news
That80sGuy wrote:

I don't think there is a proper comparision. A print is a second
generation from a negative or slide.

Or from a digital.

A proper point, but a poor comparison. A digital sensor is much more
perfectly flat than film. There is no dimensional grain in a digital
sensor (there is noise in dynamic, but its always within the bounds of the
pixel).

Most people don't view "first generation" digital files. In fact, nobody
CAN view "first generation" digital files at full resolution. A UXGA
(1600x1200) monitor has only 1.9 megapixels; digital files have 12mp. The
highest resolution monitor is WQUXGA (3840x2400, still far short of
displaying a native 12mp file. Oh, and it's $20,000.00 with a 300:1
contrast ratio that will make your "first generation" file look like
crap.).

Ahem. You zoom into the area of detail of interest. But again, that's
not the same as viewing a print which cannot have the dynamic range of the
image in any case. Never mind the 100 dpi or so of a typical monitor v.
the 300 dpi of a typical print. (Even your drool-monitor above is
somewhat less than 300 dpi.)

So digital must be viewed as a print as well if one wants to get full
resolution.

Hmm. Odd you mention that now...


Now, if we are to compare a digital file to an
original slide (kodachrom or ektachrome) then it would be a fair
contest. However, there isn't a way to accurately view slides with
out a scan, which is a second generation again.

Ever heard of projectors? Ilfochrome? You're a "photo instructor"?
Yikes.
So, my point it this,
does it really matter?
Digital Images have allowed us to view first generation files

Yeah, either reduced to 25% resolution to fit a monitor, or by scrolling
to see 1/6th of the picture at a time at full res. Pfft.

Pfft yourself. A monitor is on the order of 100 dpi and a print on the
order of 300 dpi. So yes, in editing you have to zoom in for critical
detail.

And yes, you display it resized to see the entire image for overall
effect. And so what? This has absolutely nothing to do with film v
digital. Once you've digitized film, it is no different in this sense
than a digital original.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

John McWilliams wrote:
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".

There is the critic with a wasted post.

ASAAR wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:47:01 -0700 (PDT), Scott W wrote:


Can you buy film or new film cameras any more?

Costco quit carrying them some time ago. I just checked Wal-Mart,
they list 4 film cameras, they all look like crap and none of them are
in a store within 100 miles of here. My guess is that many stores are
going to sell off their remaining inventory and then not carry them
anymore.


Several months ago a local Rite-Aid wouldn't accept my Kodak 35mm
cassette, saying that they only processed Fuji's and their own
Rite-Aid brand film. I didn't argue, but took the film to another
Rite-Aid about a mile away that had no such problems.

Rite Aid is known for hiring dummies and your Rite Aid go one from
outside the standard deviation. All of these films take the same process.
The prints
turned out OK, despite having been in the camera for some unknown
amount of time, possibly several on up to 10 years. To rewind and
get the film out of the camera I had to replace its long dead
lithium battery.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:

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".


Who cares? (Incidentally, PPI is not correct for the sensor either!)


You tell him. Nobody cares.

Steve wrote:

One could argue a 35 mm slide is second generation, as the data is first
recorded on the film, but then has to be processed (developed) to
produce an image. You could take that argument back further and consider
the lens does processing. Hence talking of first or second generation in
this context is a bit pointless IMHO

I don't think so. To me, it's pretty clear and while you may not
agree, that's irrelavent to me.

That is rather rude of you.

What I think of first generation is the earliest "thing" that gets
archived for making subsequent prints. You don't archive the photons
going through a lens. You don't archive undeveloped film. But you do
archive negatives so you can make further prints from them. Same with
slides, but not for prints, for direct viewing.

I archive RAW files so I can make subsequent prints and the RAW file
is the earliest "thing" that can get archived, so that's what I
consider first generation. But unlike a 35mm slide, you can't "see" a
RAW file. You have to do further processing on it to be able to see
an image. So what you're seeing when you view a RAW file on the
screen or a print is 2nd generation. Just like what you're seeing
when you view a print enlarged from a negative is 2nd generation.

If your camera outputs only JPEG, then that's 1st generation even
though the quality might not be as good as something you can
post-process from RAW data. And that's only because it's the earliest
thing you can archive.

You can use the same analogy in other media also. For instance,
recording. The multitrack recording is something like a "pre 1st
generation" because it's not what you use to make copies of. But when
you mix it down and then master it, the master recording is a 1st
generation because that's what's used to make further copies from.

Steve

You have made a pretty good argument for what is first generation in
this case. I can't really argue with that. I just think you are a bit rude.

Dave

NigelCummings wrote:
Hmmmmmm.....

I don't read top posts. Please snip and reply for relevance.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 18:58:26 +0100, Dave wrote:

You have made a pretty good argument for what is first generation in
this case. I can't really argue with that. I just think you are a bit rude.

Sorry, didn't mean it to come off that way.

Steve

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:40:10 -0700, -hh wrote:

Stefan Patric wrote:

I'd start by trying to find a pro lab in your city.

Used to use them. What didn't help was that all 3 of them went out in
6 months.

Obsolescence: The result of progress.


Or you could buy a Jobo ATL-1000 film processor off eBay, and do it
yourself. They're probably very inexpensive by now. Â*;-)

Sure, if I had someplace to put it; to set one up, I'd pretty much have
to rent space...but then I'd be able to have a full darkroom with
Bessler enlarger, etc. Because I couldn't take the gear, I did
encourage the owner of the one E6 Pro lab to see if the local Art school
was interested in his equipment for free, but they didn't see
film/darkroom as an 'art' that's yet worth preserving the skills.

Actually, you don't need a darkroom to process film in the ATL-1000 or
its replacement, the ATL-1500. They both are about the size of laser
printer and sit just fine on a kitchen counter. They use daylight Jobo
tanks, and all you need to load them is a daylight changing bag.

http://www.jobousadarkroom.com/instr...tl-1500_00.htm


Stef

My little Lumix cost about a hundred bucks, on sale. I've gotten prints
equal to my 35 MM. Love the ability to select the mega bytes per frame. I
usually take still pics 0.3 mb, though I do use more MB for group photos,
etc. Where more detail is needed.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"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.)

--
Bob D.