Little comparison

Roo · Forum Master Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 442

Not 35mm but oh well, just a little comparison of a film and digital picture.

On the left, Fuji 160s (neg) 5x4 shot on cambo 5x4, standard lens, f16, scanned in on some hasselblad drum scanner.
On the right, Nikon D200 (10.2 megapixel), standard lens, f16

dandantheadminman · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject:

thnx for the comparision, tis interesting

so would you agree with me in saying the digital shot is better?

how coem the color rendition is dif? white balance?
_________________
Ride like you have insurance.

Roo · Forum Master Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 442

I don't agree at all!, the film shot looks far better (it should be, the negative is many times the size of the D200's APS-C sized sensor), it actually seems sharper even though no sharpening has been applied - just look on the dust on the sync socket. Secondly, you could scan the negative at an even higher resolution, already it's surpassed the D200 (look at the size difference. The grain of the film is far nicer than the noise of the digital.

As for colour temperature, I haven't bothered trying to get them the same, but you could probably get them close.

fozzybear · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:38 pm Post subject:

as you said... the sensor size makes a huge difference..

i foresee the next gen going to 20 odd mpix with full size sensors..
i'm pretty sure anyone who used/uses cameras would happily admit that film will beat digital up close..

mikedeere · Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject:

The film one is a lot better, but then again if you compared a 5x4 film shot with an equivilant med-format digital back such as a Hasselblad H1D (22-Megapixel) or Leaf Aptus (up to 39-Megapixels) the it'd be a lot closer. I fear the digital may even pick up more detail depending on the film's ISO sensitivity.

Roo · Forum Master Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 442

mikedeere · Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:43 pm Post subject:

That'd be sweet to see how the Phase One compares, not seen any sample shots from it.

I can imagine it's a cropped image, as there's no way in hell that it could be financially viable to produce a 5x4 size image sensor given the current yield larger silicon wafers!

Any idea what size the sensor is?

Hamish · Forum Veteran Joined: 29 Sep 2006 Posts: 1011

Am I alone in finding these type of comparisons largely pointless? It's a pretty unscientific comparison, with this example, Roo.

What exactly is a 'standard' lens, for example? Why compare the detail in different sized images from different sized negatives? We know they're different. Why not scan in and compare a 35mm and 5x4 photo taken with the same film? You also mention that the film is not sharpened - I don't remember ever having to do that with film.... is the digital image sharpened or not? After all the D200 is well known to need aggressive sharpening PP to bring out the best of the detail resolved.

We've known for a long time that, if enlargements with miniscule detail is most important then use medium/large format, preferrably with slide film. If you have to Email the photos immediately to your editor then digital is the most practical.

Your comparison is like trying to compare a Ferrari with a Megane scenic - one is great for burning about the place, the other is better for doing the school run then going to Tesco for the weeks shopping.
_________________
Hamish

Roo · Forum Master Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 442

Tooooo many questions, I'll answer them in the quote Very Happy

Roo · Forum Master Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 442

Roo · Forum Master Joined: 16 Aug 2006 Posts: 442