BEWARE OF SCAMMERS ASKING FOR ADMIN ACCESS. WE NEVER ASK FOR ACCESS.
Roo
|
Little comparisonNot 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
|
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?
|
Roo
|
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
|
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
|
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
|
| mikedeere wrote: | | 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. |
We tested the shot with a phase one digi back, I'll see if I can get hold of that shot, although I think it's a medium format back but fit's on the 5x4 camera so the picture is cropped.
The obvious test would have been a 35mm tranny and the D200, but I didn't have my film camera with me, othewise I would have tried.
|
mikedeere
|
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
|
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.
|
Roo
|
Tooooo many questions, I'll answer them in the quote 
| Hamish wrote: | Am I alone in finding these type of comparisons largely pointless?your not alone, I do too It's a pretty unscientific comparison, with this example, Roo.
What exactly is a 'standard' lens, for example?it's roughly the measurement of the diagonal of the recording medium, 50mm for 35mm format, 80/90mm for 6x7cm format, 150mm for 5"x4" format Why compare the detail in different sized images from different sized negatives?They are the two I had on my computer that I thought might interest someone on here We know they're different. Why not scan in and compare a 35mm and 5x4 photo taken with the same film?I have no need or want to 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?I meant the scanned digital file had tno sharpening applied, you can do this in photoshop the same as you can with a digital photo, the D200 picture was moderately sharpeded for the reason you say 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.doesn't mean it's not interesing to some of us  |
I'm not trying to argue for or against digital or any of the formats, they all have their benefits and problems.
|
Roo
|
| mikedeere wrote: | 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? |
Yeah, I have no idea if a 5"x4" sensor is around, but I think this one was either 6x6 or 6x7cm?
|
Roo
|
| mikedeere wrote: |
Any idea what size the sensor is? |
Checked today, its 6x4.5cm.
|
|
|
|