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

Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 1st 04, 08:22 PM
Mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner

Has anyone a link or material to share regarding how digital camera's
compare to scanning film on a film scanner?

Is the sensor technology the same or is one better than the other?

Assuming I had the same number of megapixels would one have better
color information than the other? For example, reading about CMOS
sensors in digital cameras, each pixel is a gray value in RAW. The
camera then interprets the colors based on surrounding pixels and the
bayer filter values, is that the way film scanners work too?

Any other major differences in quality of output?
  #3  
Old July 1st 04, 11:29 PM
David Dyer-Bennet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner

(Mike) writes:

Has anyone a link or material to share regarding how digital camera's
compare to scanning film on a film scanner?

Is the sensor technology the same or is one better than the other?

Assuming I had the same number of megapixels would one have better
color information than the other? For example, reading about CMOS
sensors in digital cameras, each pixel is a gray value in RAW. The
camera then interprets the colors based on surrounding pixels and the
bayer filter values, is that the way film scanners work too?

Any other major differences in quality of output?


Generally speaking, digital-original pixels (captured directly with a
digital camera) are worth considerably more than scanned-film pixels;
that is, a 6 megapixel digital original is much better than a 6
megapixel film scan. I don't think there's a clear factor; I use 2x
as a rule of thumb, but it's very rough and not arrived at by any
scientific process. The quality of the digital camera also makes a
difference; the bigger sensors on digital SLRs really do give lower
noise and hence better pictures, especially at high ISO.

Scanners actually scan each primary color at each pixel individually,
unlike most digital SLRs. This makes less difference than you might
expect (see all the Sigma/Foveon threads), but it makes some
difference.

Scanning takes quite a lot of time (or costs quite a lot of money).
Workflow issues are driving many high-volume professionals to shooting
digitally even if other reasons don't.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/
  #4  
Old July 2nd 04, 01:39 AM
bmoag
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner

The digital afficionado will claim the superiority of the orginal digital
image.

Digital is more convenient. Current higher end digital cameras deliver high
quality images under the appropriate cirmumstances.

The reality is that scanned 35mm film, particularly negative film, shows
greater latitude and contains exponentially more picture information than
most digital originals. I have been working with both. I am starting to
habitually reach for the digital camera, because it is easier and faster to
get the digital image into Photoshop that way.

But when I take the time to scan a 35mm negative it is obvious how far
digital sesnors have to go.


  #5  
Old July 4th 04, 08:26 PM
Bob C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner

I have spent a little time (too much) examining nagatives and slides
under a microscope, and found that there is a great deal of detail
that simply does not come out with normal digital printing you get at
most photo labs. A small object I can see on a negative will appear
as pixels on a print or .JPG file. I don't know what resolution is
required to get all the information, but I suspect it's not far short
of 4000 dpi.
  #6  
Old July 4th 04, 08:53 PM
Bart van der Wolf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Digital camera versus Digital Film Scanner


"Bob C" wrote in message
om...
I have spent a little time (too much) examining nagatives and slides
under a microscope, and found that there is a great deal of detail
that simply does not come out with normal digital printing you get at
most photo labs. A small object I can see on a negative will appear
as pixels on a print or .JPG file. I don't know what resolution is
required to get all the information, but I suspect it's not far short
of 4000 dpi.


If the low ISO film image was shot with a quality lens and preferably on
tripod, 6000 to 8000 ppi is more likely. Note that the scanning stage
introduces some optical (sampling and contrast) loss aswell, but part of
that can be restored by postprocessing. Optical printing will also introduce
small optical (contrast) losses, but they cannot be compensated.
See http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html and
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/f...400/se5400.htm for some
practical examples.

Bart

 




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
Will digital photography ever stabilize? Alfred Molon Digital Photography 37 June 30th 04 08:11 PM
Scan film V Digital SLR DonB Digital Photography 7 June 28th 04 09:25 PM
Digital camera design idea Justin Thyme Digital Photography 10 June 26th 04 11:45 PM
Any successfulB&W digital images from 35mm film? QkaG In The Darkroom 11 April 6th 04 07:11 PM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 09:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.