Sign of the times

Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
2,208
That's too bad - digital still hasn't caught up to film in quality, just convinience.
 

buck52

Banned
Joined
Mar 9, 2001
Messages
8,372
erick295 said:
That's too bad - digital still hasn't caught up to film in quality, just convinience.
Maybe you have not caught up to good quality digital... ;)

buck
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
2,208
buck52 said:
Maybe you have not caught up to good quality digital... ;)
Well, if you're only taking point-and-shoot cameras into consideration, of course the digital ones are better than cheap 35mm cameras. But nothing digital can beat a good film camera with good film... it has a very high resolution, more accurate color reproduction, and (especially) better white balance. Look at some side-by-side comparisons, you'll see what I mean. Digital will catch up in time, but it hasn't yet.

I'm not knocking it though... I have a Nikon Coolpix 4300 point-and-shoot and a Canon Digital Rebel XT, and I wouldn't trade them for anything. But that's because of cost and convinience, not because of image quality.
 

buck52

Banned
Joined
Mar 9, 2001
Messages
8,372
Hi again erick295 :)

couple of thoughts...

"Well, if you're only taking point-and-shoot cameras into consideration"
I was not, I figured you were... :)

You need to be sure you are comparing apples to apples... I would not expect the coolpix or the rebel to match a top quality pro 35mm film as they are not top quality pro digital cameras

I would put my pro, not prosumer, Nikon digital camera against any 35mm film camera... I'm sure anyone that shoots a Canon the likes of a 1Ds or 1Ds mkII would say the same. There are three Pro Labs in my area that agree as well...

The other thing you need to be sure of is that you compare prints not images on a monitor. The prints should also be done by a Pro lab with a top quality printer such as a Fuji Frontier. Once printed shuffle them up and then try to pick which is which... It will nothing but a guess...

Consumer inkjet printers just don't do the trick...

I intended no arguement...the digital vs. film debates are still very alive and everyone has opinion

One more thought... To probably 80-90% of the population the images produced from a 10$ disposable camera, you can pick up just about anywhere, are wonderful as far as they are concerned... ;)

buck
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
1,993
Isn't the main difference with digital and film now to do with speed.

Digital cameras lag.
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
2,208
It's not so much the resolution, but the color quality... sensors can't pick up as many colors as film, so a lot of the depth is lost. This really shoudn't come as a surprise... there are a whole lot more than 256 levels of red in the world, but that's all a 32-bit image can be - 256 levels of blue, green, or red, mixed to make colors. And the whitebalance on a digital camera can never be as rich as what you'll find on film.

And about resolution, it's getting close to matching 35mm... but I'd like to see a digital camera that can get the same resolution as a 4x6 film camera! It will be a long time before that happens.

And I'm not comparing prosumer cameras to pro cameras, I'm comparing pro cameras to pro cameras.

Digital has many advantages, but image quality isn't one of them.
 

buck52

Banned
Joined
Mar 9, 2001
Messages
8,372
Howdy lister

"lag" what ?

Hi again erick295

like I said everyone has an opinion... ;)

erick295 said:
I'm comparing pro cameras to pro cameras.
Which pro digital cameras would that be...certainly not the two you have mentioned, which by the way are good cameras but not Pro...

buck
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
2,208
buck52 said:
Which pro digital cameras would that be...certainly not the two you have mentioned, which by the way are good cameras but not Pro...
As you said, Canon 1Ds, etc. Obviously I wouldn't expect a $1,000 DSLR to do as well as a pro-level DSLR.
 

buck52

Banned
Joined
Mar 9, 2001
Messages
8,372
erick295 said:
As you said, Canon 1Ds, etc. Obviously I wouldn't expect a $1,000 DSLR to do as well as a pro-level DSLR.
Please post some sites or reviews or anything to support your claim...

I am not a Canon shooter, as a matter of fact I have never had a Canon in my hand... but... the Canon 1Ds mkII as well as my Nikon D2X will match anything you can throw at it from the 35mm film world...color, white balance, or resolution... period...

If you like I'll post a link to a massive tiff file you can print or take to your local lab... :D

buck
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
2,208
I'd rather not spend the time to dig up sites... you can look if you're curious... and 35mm film obviously doesn't provide as good of a resolution as you can get with larger transparencies, but I think you're missing the point. It's color, not resolution, that gives film an edge. Yes, digital cameras take great photos. But film cameras take better photos. No one has to believe me if they don't want to. By the time anyone agrees on this issue, digital will have caught up and it won't matter anyway. This is like the argument of digital vs. analog music :)
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
2,208
Actually, I couldn't show you if I wanted to, because monitors can't display enough colors anyway.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2004
Messages
22,816
Erick, I'll go with Norm Koren on this until you present your credentials so that I can believe you rather then him--and of course my own judgement.

Color quality We won't go into detail here, but in my experience digital is consistently outstanding-- better than film when prints are the end product (though not comparable for slides). The reason is that there is less generation loss. With a digital camera, the steps are (1) digital capture, involving filtered sensors, (2) Bayer interpolation (except for Foveon), which doesn't affect color quality, (3) Image editing (no generation loss either, but lots of potential gains), and (4) Printing using pigments or dyes. With film the steps are (1) Exposure, using layered film, where dye-couplers determine the sensitivity of the layers, and (2) development, where the dye couplers determine the color (light absorption) of each layer. A lot of sophisticated work has gone into making the light sensitivity comparable to the spectral absorption of each layer. If (1) and (2) were the whole story, as it is for slides, film would be ahead, but there's more for prints. For traditional prints you have to (3) expose color paper through an enlarging lens and (4) develop it. This involves the same compromises as (1) and (2). For digital prints you have to go through a process similar to digital camera capture. Bottom line: colors in prints captured on digital cameras are wonderful-- subtle or vivid, as appropriate. They have a three-dimensional quality rarely seen in prints from film originals.
All of these properties can be measured with Imatest, a program that measures digital image sharpness and quality using simple, widely available targets. Resolution (MTF) is measured by SFR with a target you can print yourself. Noise and dynamic range is measured by Q-13 Stepchart. Color quality is measured by Colorcheck.
 
Status
This thread has been Locked and is not open to further replies. Please start a New Thread if you're having a similar issue. View our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 807,865 other people just like you!

Latest posts

Members online

Top