Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Comparing a DSLR file with a 35mm scan

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:51:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a digital
file?

Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints, each
produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents. Certainly
comparisons made for the Internet are biased. Either they are biased towards
film or the digital file.

Not long ago I carried out some experiments with film to see what I could
achieve, given that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up a digital
file to proportions not previously considered practical from a sub 35mm size
source. I used a new Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED scanner to scan the film.
What do you think?
http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm

Douglas
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 1:52:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Any chance that the film was left in the trunk of a black car in Houston,
Texas over the entire summer before processing?
June 21, 2005 1:52:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia@home wrote:

> How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
> file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a
> digital file?
>
> Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,

What's wrong with doing that? I find it silly people scan film as IMHO
that's just comparing that scanner to digital capture. What's even stranger
is scanning an optical print on one flatbed scanner and comparing it to
film scanned in a different film scanner and using that as a "test" of film
scans vs optical prints? Unless you're only objective is to publish the
image on the web (which a digital file IS the final product), I'd sugest
you use the best techique to make prints from the two things you want to
compare, then scan both on the same flatbed scanner to present the results.

I'm fixing to do this with a medium format 6X9 color negative shot with a
fuji 6X9GSW. Already scaned the neg on a LS8000 (did several scans at
various test focus points to find the best setting) and am having an 8X10
print made from the file on the latest agfa machine on RA4 paper. My tests
of having prints made from the same sample file on several local machines
shows this machine to provide the sharpest/best looking print at least
around here. Then I'm going to ask these same people to make an optical
print from this same negative, printed on the same paper and match it as
close as they can to see which looks best. Then scan both final prints to
present which path produces the best results.

To "cripple" either version by presenting anything other than flatbed scans
of the same size prints with no difference as far as up or down sampling,
paper it's printed on, contrast, desinty, color cast etc is silly IMHO and
is normally done to fit someone's preformed bias. I have no love for
optical prints or scanned film, I just want to see which provides the best
quality. I hope the scan is close enough to a -good- optical print (not a
wlamart one) as I like being able to edit the files as needed.

--

Stacey
Related resources
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 3:44:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:51:59 +1000, "Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
>file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a digital
>file?

What formats are you talking about. As I've said elsewhere it's hard
to beat a 8x10 Velvia slide.

I don't compare digital to film they are two different media and have
to be treated and evaluated differently.

How do you compare a Horishge print to Duer etching?


****************************************************************

"Anarchism is both a religious faith and a rational philosophy;
and many of its anomalies are the product of the clash between
the two, and of the tensions between the different kinds of
temperament which they represent."

_The Anarchists_
James Joll - 1964
June 21, 2005 6:29:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:42b6adeb$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au:

> How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a
> digital file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare
> it to a digital file?
>
> Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,
> each produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents.
> Certainly comparisons made for the Internet are biased. Either they
> are biased towards film or the digital file.
>
> Not long ago I carried out some experiments with film to see what I
> could achieve, given that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up
> a digital file to proportions not previously considered practical from
> a sub 35mm size source. I used a new Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED
> scanner to scan the film. What do you think?
> http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm

Have you printed the digital image and compared it to the print from the
film? Could you tell us how you think the detail compares?

If your required output is a computer image then your test shows clearly
that the digital camera produces better results than film + scanning.

If your required output is a print at a certain size then what counts is
how the print at that size compares from film and from digital.

Of course if both types produce good enough results for your desired output
then you are free to choose whichever you find most convenient. I would
suspect that this would be the case for most people.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 11:17:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:p v-dndO2NsgWsirfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
> Any chance that the film was left in the trunk of a black car in Houston,
> Texas over the entire summer before processing?
Actually at 8"x10" the film image looks OK.
No the one from the trunk has a hole in the middle of it!

Doulgas
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 11:17:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42b7326f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:p v-dndO2NsgWsirfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
>> Any chance that the film was left in the trunk of a black car in Houston,
>> Texas over the entire summer before processing?
> Actually at 8"x10" the film image looks OK.
> No the one from the trunk has a hole in the middle of it!

Douglas, I am nevertheless suspicious of your test image. I no longer own a
decent film camera but if I did, I'd be compelled to run my own tests.
Don't get me wrong as I love digital but personally do not believe that they
(such as 20Ds) are that much better than good 35 mm film cameras using good
film (in terms of ENLARGED print quality). I have a 20D and just love the
darned thing. Here is one of mine:
http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/29130...
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 4:06:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Ryadia@home wrote:
>
>
>>How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a digital
>>file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare it to a
>>digital file?
>>
>>Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,
>
>
> What's wrong with doing that? I find it silly people scan film as IMHO
> that's just comparing that scanner to digital capture. What's even stranger
> is scanning an optical print on one flatbed scanner and comparing it to
> film scanned in a different film scanner and using that as a "test" of film
> scans vs optical prints? Unless you're only objective is to publish the
> image on the web (which a digital file IS the final product), I'd sugest
> you use the best techique to make prints from the two things you want to
> compare, then scan both on the same flatbed scanner to present the results.
>
> I'm fixing to do this with a medium format 6X9 color negative shot with a
> fuji 6X9GSW. Already scaned the neg on a LS8000 (did several scans at
> various test focus points to find the best setting) and am having an 8X10
> print made from the file on the latest agfa machine on RA4 paper. My tests
> of having prints made from the same sample file on several local machines
> shows this machine to provide the sharpest/best looking print at least
> around here. Then I'm going to ask these same people to make an optical
> print from this same negative, printed on the same paper and match it as
> close as they can to see which looks best. Then scan both final prints to
> present which path produces the best results.
>
> To "cripple" either version by presenting anything other than flatbed scans
> of the same size prints with no difference as far as up or down sampling,
> paper it's printed on, contrast, desinty, color cast etc is silly IMHO and
> is normally done to fit someone's preformed bias. I have no love for
> optical prints or scanned film, I just want to see which provides the best
> quality. I hope the scan is close enough to a -good- optical print (not a
> wlamart one) as I like being able to edit the files as needed.
>

Why do you rename threads Stacey?
June 21, 2005 4:06:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

doug wrote:

>>
>
> Why do you rename threads Stacey?

Why not? It's done on other forums to show the topic of a responce to see if
you're even interested in reading the responce ro to signal it's shifting
from the original topic. Any good newsreader keeps it threaded in the
opriginal thread anyway.

--

Stacey
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 4:26:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Qp6dnYFikrxOqyrfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Charles Schuler <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:42b7326f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> "Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:p v-dndO2NsgWsirfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
>>> Any chance that the film was left in the trunk of a black car in Houston,
>>> Texas over the entire summer before processing?
>> Actually at 8"x10" the film image looks OK.
>> No the one from the trunk has a hole in the middle of it!
>
>Douglas, I am nevertheless suspicious of your test image. I no longer own a
>decent film camera but if I did, I'd be compelled to run my own tests.

Remember that he shows the film image at a resolution that corresponds to
a 6000 dpi scan. If you take the cheapest consumer film you can find
(optionally underexpose it a bit), use cheap processing, then there is
good chance that you may arrive at just like this.

On the other hand, Gold 100 has ugly grain. The following is a 4000 dpi scan
of a Gold 100 frame, resized to 6000 dpi:

<http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/tmp/G100-6-6000.png&gt;

It is very ugly, but somehow not as bad as the example from OP.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 8:47:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

MarkH wrote:
> "Ryadia@home" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:42b6adeb$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
>
>
>>How do you compare digital to film? Do you make a negative from a
>>digital file and them print it or do you scan a negative and compare
>>it to a digital file?
>>
>>Sadly there is no way to compare the two other than with final prints,
>>each produced in the most favourable way for the medium it represents.
>>Certainly comparisons made for the Internet are biased. Either they
>>are biased towards film or the digital file.
>>
>>Not long ago I carried out some experiments with film to see what I
>>could achieve, given that my digital enlargement algorithm can blow up
>>a digital file to proportions not previously considered practical from
>>a sub 35mm size source. I used a new Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED
>>scanner to scan the film. What do you think?
>>http://www.technoaussie.com/digital_to_film2.htm
>
>
> Have you printed the digital image and compared it to the print from the
> film? Could you tell us how you think the detail compares?
>
> If your required output is a computer image then your test shows clearly
> that the digital camera produces better results than film + scanning.
>
> If your required output is a print at a certain size then what counts is
> how the print at that size compares from film and from digital.
>
> Of course if both types produce good enough results for your desired output
> then you are free to choose whichever you find most convenient. I would
> suspect that this would be the case for most people.
>
>
If I make a print from the film of (say) 8"x11" with my Durst enlarger
and process it in RA chemicals and then make a print on a good inkjet or
dye-sub from the digital file, the only difference is the brightness of
the colours. In particular, reds although some blues also get a boost
from digital. Otherwise, anyone would happily agree that film has many
advantages over digital. Unfortunately Digital has more advantages over
film so digital will eventually rule if for no other reason than
convenience.

Oddly enough if I scan the continuous tone print (from film) and
Interpolate it to 24"x 36" or there abouts, all the grain and noise
evident in the film scan is mysteriously missing.

I think that example probably does more to harm Nikon's reputation for
film scanners than it does for film in general. I recently re-purchased
some Mamiya cameras and lenses because I still believe there is a market
for traditional portraits, shot on film.

Douglas (Ryadia)
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 11:04:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:l4h50lo32g75efmvhrq0evc6u1@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
>
> Remember that he shows the film image at a resolution that corresponds to
> a 6000 dpi scan. If you take the cheapest consumer film you can find
> (optionally underexpose it a bit), use cheap processing, then there is
> good chance that you may arrive at just like this.
>
> On the other hand, Gold 100 has ugly grain. The following is a 4000 dpi
> scan
> of a Gold 100 frame, resized to 6000 dpi:
>
> <http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/tmp/G100-6-6000.png&gt;
>
> It is very ugly, but somehow not as bad as the example from OP.
>
>
> --
It is/was common practice in cut price labs to push the temperature of film
processing up a few degrees and pull the processing time back a few minutes
and get 15% more film processed in a day than was the capacity of the lab. I
have seen a 100 film a day lab pushed to extremes and process 250 films in a
day. All semblance of quality control went out the window but the lab made
money because the cut the price and punters flocked in.

I know from the increased contrast of these films that this was most
probably the case and responsible for the horrible grain. Some films behave
well enough when you manipulate the processing. I used to use ISO 200 film
exposed at 100 ISO and pulled in the processing to produce internegs from
slides to get the print cost down but it took a lot of experimenting to
discover the particular film to do it with.

Douglas
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 11:04:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <42b92a7b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Ryadia@home <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It is/was common practice in cut price labs to push the temperature of film
>processing up a few degrees and pull the processing time back a few minutes
>and get 15% more film processed in a day than was the capacity of the lab. I
>have seen a 100 film a day lab pushed to extremes and process 250 films in a
>day. All semblance of quality control went out the window but the lab made
>money because the cut the price and punters flocked in.

In that case, it would be nice if you could add scans of properly processed
professional films.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:56:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:cfqe2a5kquln45dilqmpfljpb1@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
> In article <42b92a7b$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
> Ryadia@home <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>It is/was common practice in cut price labs to push the temperature of
>>film
>>processing up a few degrees and pull the processing time back a few
>>minutes
>>and get 15% more film processed in a day than was the capacity of the lab.
>>I
>>have seen a 100 film a day lab pushed to extremes and process 250 films in
>>a
>>day. All semblance of quality control went out the window but the lab made
>>money because the cut the price and punters flocked in.
>
> In that case, it would be nice if you could add scans of properly
> processed
> professional films.
>
>
> --
Extremely unlikely that will happen Philip.
I have given up on posting any photos of value on the Internet and all my
Pro film has value of one sort or another.

Douglas
Anonymous
June 23, 2005 7:56:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <42b9a645@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
Once was Ryadia <blackhole@mydomain.com> wrote:
>"Philip Homburg" <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote in message
>news:cfqe2a5kquln45dilqmpfljpb1@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net...
>> In that case, it would be nice if you could add scans of properly
>> processed
>> professional films.

>Extremely unlikely that will happen Philip.
>I have given up on posting any photos of value on the Internet and all my
>Pro film has value of one sort or another.

It would be nice, if you can also give up posting junk on the Internet.

But maybe I should try to see if my kill file can keep up with your morphing
speed.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
!