digital or film??

[Scubatooth]

what type of samples would you like to look at? i can go from there. please be patient as im still typing to build my personal site and portfolio, just that im busier then a 1 arm paper hanger

i will try to find the orginal file i have that was used to make a print from a previous president of my college that was done in digital and that print is over 5 feet tall (probably 24x60) that looks dang good, but lets put it this way that file was 950+ megabytes when it was done and sent to the printer (it was a Tiff)

but let me see if i can find one of the web size shots

but the big thing about digital that most people dont know is that what you see on your screen or monitor is not what a print will look like, most monitors run on a 72 dpi resolution, were as most prints that are done need 300 dpi so there is a 4:1 disparity in actual looks, were as on your screen it may look to sharp (unrealistic) or blocky, but when printed it looks just fine. as a general rulle of thumb the minimum resoultion needed for a 4x6 is 1200x1800 or around 2 megapixel, so for a 5 megapixel(2560x 1706 you could do a 8.5x5.7 with out any major work (this is using a 3:2 aspect ratio and 300 dpi print, now if i wanted larger prints then this i would simply use severaly well know photoshop plugins or programs that will upsize the image without any detrimental effect. So far to date my biggest upsize job without any loss of quality has been 8.2x using genuie fractals and that was starting with a RAW image from a Canon 1Ds that was going to be used for a 24*30 poster , let me go find out what the pixel size was , but some were on the order of 90,200,000 pixels total in that image, and that was letting the computer do the work, if i wanted to i would manuelly upsize it in photoshop by adding 1-3 pixels to the width and height of the image till it was the size it needed to be.)

sorry got to run if you have any more questions feel free to ask

 

[cdiver2]

thanks for the reply and i will be very intrested to see what you come up with, now Im not a computer geek in fact Im stupid when it comes to them but I think from your text that you were saying that when it comes to a pic being displayed on a computer screen it dosent mater if its film or digital it can only be displayed at a lesser quality than the pic is, assuming the pic is good to start with ?

 

[MikeS]

Mverick once bubbled...

This statement is so wrong I don't know what else to say about it.. The media Film or Digital doesn't matter???? Only Optics???? WRONG......... Both matter... If digital wont record a large enough file to work with. How you gonna make a quality print???

I didn’t say that media doesn’t matter, I said that optics are more important than media. I have an antique Brownie Hawkeye camera that can use the same film (media) as your medium format Bronica. The pictures are never going to be very good because it has a single element lens.

With most of the consumer digital cameras on the market today the quality of the optics is such that a CCD with additional resolution would make no difference. I’ve seen it many times in comparisons. Of course that is not true of the higher end cameras and certainly not so for the digital SLRs. At work, while it’s not what we do for a living, we take many pictures for documentation. My older Sony Mavica CD with only 2.3 Megapixals constantly produces better pictures than many new 5 Megapixals cameras. Why because of the optics.

While I still contend that state of the art digital cameras can produce higher resolution pictures than film, I agree with what I think your saying that dollar for dollar film can provide higher resolution.

Mike

 

[adshepard]

MikeS once bubbled...



While I still contend that state of the art digital cameras can produce higher resolution pictures than film, I agree with what I think your saying that dollar for dollar film can provide higher resolution.

Mike

If by state of the art you're talking the HIGHEST end digital SLR then maybe but for the most part the statement is very untrue and already proven in tests. Film still leads in resolution and will continue to do so for a bit.


DSDO

Alan

 

[Mverick]

MikeS once bubbled...


I didn’t say that media doesn’t matter, I said that optics are more important than media. I have an antique Brownie Hawkeye camera that can use the same film (media) as your medium format Bronica. The pictures are never going to be very good because it has a single element lens.Mike

This is what you said. Exactly...

MikeS once bubbled...



The media, film or digital, has less impact on the quality of pictures than the optics. So if you are concerned about quality pay more attention to the quality of the optics than anything else. In digital cameras the number of mega pixels is much less important than quality of optics. A 5 mega pixel picture taken with poor optics is a high resolution fuzzy picture! The number of pixels is used as a comparison only because it is easy to quantify as opposed to optics quality which is not.Mike

I'm comparing Apples to Apples. I'll compare a Canon Rebel with a Canon 10d. Same lense. So Same Optics. Guess what. The $250 Rebel wins, not the $1600 10d. Don't even need an EOS for film. So, with the same optics.. The Film camera wins. So, your statement that optics matter more then Media, being film or Digital is misleading. I'm comparing apples to apples. And with an apples to apples comparison. Film still wins.

You're comparing a $20 brownie to a $4000 Bronica for film. Not quite an equal comparison.

There are junk film camera's and junk Digital camera's. I'm not talking about either.

Oly 5050 and 5060's have good optics. I actually like them.

MikeS once bubbled...


With most of the consumer digital cameras on the market today the quality of the optics is such that a CCD with additional resolution would make no difference. I’ve seen it many times in comparisons. Of course that is not true of the higher end cameras and certainly not so for the digital SLRs. At work, while it’s not what we do for a living, we take many pictures for documentation. My older Sony Mavica CD with only 2.3 Megapixals constantly produces better pictures than many new 5 Megapixals cameras. Why because of the optics.Mike

But before you said.

MikeS once bubbled...

At this point you pay a premium for the convenience and instant gratification of digital. Additionally the optics options are more limited. I want instant gratification so I have a Sony DSC-F717. It has good Carl Zeiss optics but with a list price of $800 I could have purchased a better film camera with changeable lenses while this camera has a fixed lens.Mike

You have a CARL ZEISS LENS. So it has to be better quality. Put a Leica film camera against it. With a Carl Zeiss Lense. Then tell me which has better resolution. But the Leica cost a whole lot more. Heck the Lense costs more than your whole camera. So you really think that Lense on yours is a High Grade Zeiss????

And, by the way. I'm not big on Zeiss glass for smaller formats. I like the Nikon and Canon. High end lenses. Zeiss makes great BIG glass. For 35mm. I'm not a fan.

And still you don't get it. You're comparing 2 different cameras. And making conclusions about them. How many variables do you have????? I see your an engineer. Do you think the electronics inside play a part???? Do you think who the Sensor was made by play's a part???? What about the Card you're writting too??? Computer you download to????? How many extra variables do you have. And still you're blaming Optics more then Media. You're talking about comparing a low end 5mp digital with a High end digital 3mp and claming it's all optics. Sorry, that just isn't true.

MikeS once bubbled...


While I still contend that state of the art digital cameras can produce higher resolution pictures than film, I agree with what I think your saying that dollar for dollar film can provide higher resolution.

Mike

I'd like to see you name one of these High End State of the art Digital cameras that can produce higher resolution pictures than film.

My 8x10 Largefrmat camera shoots an 8x10 negative. Or even Slide.

It's waiting on a comparison from your high end Digital. From what you said the Hubble. I wanna see you bring it in for a comparison shoot. By the way. They make film that's up to 30x40. And still there is no way your gonna get better resolution...... """""AT THIS STAGE""""""" Then film......

On Film compared to Digital. Your not comparing Apples to Apples. Your trying to compare a Hubble telescope to a 35mm camera. They still use U2 with film because of there greater resolution. Military would have converted to digital if it was higher resolution. And they do use Digital. For instant reading's on the U2. But still take Pics because of higher resolution. To be sure. And the Military can use anything they want.

SSRA with how your trying to put people down. And not discuss the argument. I'm not even gonna waste my time with you. Have you ever take a photo class??? Not at the dive shop. At college level or above. Not to put down the dive shop classes. But they're teaching in a week. College you get a whole semester.

And with the new and low cost OLY's. It seems the only thing limiting the shooting is the Flash recycle speed. I hear it on the dive boats all the time. """ My flash isn't always firing!!!! Do you know why?????""""""

And it's a good camera...


Digital is great to learn with. Instant feedback. But it isn't the quality of film yet.

Talk to the head of B&H Photo for underwater. He still uses a Nikonos 2 or 3. Saw him on a boat at DEMA. He stated the exact same thing. And He can shoot anything he wants.

Rick

 

[-hh]

Scubatooth once bubbled...
-hh where did you get those numbers or calculations to get a XX mp = film, because i can get slides(24x36mm slides on kodak E100 VS or any other slide film i prefer) made from 1800x1200 pixel file and it is the same with all of the other slides i have above or below the water.

I don't remember all of the specifics, athough I think some of the discussion might be here on SB and retrievable. My recollections are ~50lpmm times 24x36 frame times 8 bit color depth times 3 color channels. FWIW, I don't recall why I chose 50lpmm, but this works out mathmatically to:

{ (50*24)*(50*35)*8*3 } / 1024^2 = 49.4 M

2 nikon doesnt have a 11 mp camera there latest is the D2h which is a 4 mpx camera.

Guess I was thinking just of the new Canon.

next would be were did you get the information that strobes cause stress to animals , because i would love to see that report or study

Part of it is common sense, part is my own personal experience of accidentally nailing myself with my own strobes (which including one incident of temporary blindness and a retinal 'burn spot' that persisted for ~20 minutes), and part of it is some research that I'm aware of but am not at liberty to discuss. Pragmatically, its pretty obvious that you've temporarily blinded a pufferfish on a night dive when you see it swim full speed into a coralhead.

In known open literature, Geoge Lepp's publication, "Natural Image" wrote about responsible field techniques in the current issue (2003, Volume 19, Number 2), and he includes discussions about strobes and watching for changes in animal behavior as a criteria. The article is not online, but there is info on how to buy the issue, etc, available online at his website:

http://www.leppphoto.com/ni/index.htm



-hh

 

[ssra30]

Mverick once bubbled...


SSRA with how your trying to put people down. And not discuss the argument. I'm not even gonna waste my time with you. Have you ever take a photo class??? Not at the dive shop. At college level or above. Not to put down the dive shop classes. But they're teaching in a week. College you get a whole semester.


Rick

I don't know which discussion you think we are talking about. I started replying to your comment about people who use digital camera

<<Digital is quick and easy. Instead of setting up a shot. You just blast away till one looks good.

Kinda getting away from the artistic side of photography.>>

<<Take a photo class. Guess what. They want you to think about what your shooting. So you learn how to shoot. Not just take 1000 shots and pic the best. So you can shoot 24 and get 1 to 2 outstanding pics. With that I'm happy. And with a digital. Once you learn this. You actually can increase your quality.>>

Enough people already expressed their opinion about digital format, film format advantage and disadvantage but I thought I have expressed my opinion very clearly that when you started to generalize that digital camera user do not compose, incapable of doing anything but just shoot away until we get lucky... and have no artistic inclination in photography. That just shows how you so easily put other people down already. You assume something about other people that you do not know anything about and express your opinion that because they use digital camera, they know nothing. Go look around scubaboard, digitaldiver, wetpixel to see how many peopl are able to do exactly what you suggest only film people can do ie compose and work on their shots with digital camera and see how false your statement sounds. All I say is that don't give a blanket statement about anyone just because they choose digital format.

No, I never took formal photography class, so what, as it happens I do have undergraduate and post graduate education in respectable schools and I do know how to use my brain, even with digital camera... I am not sure why you keep bringing up school class in photography, is that the only way you know how to appreciate photography? Are you so insecure in your own opinion that you need to keep using college class to backup your ability? (well, I assume you took one since you keep bringing it up).

I am wasting enough time with you too, it is a good thing I am leaving for a week long dive trip in less than 24 hours with my digital camera and I might even try to compose a few shots here and there.

 

[Dee]

I think this discussion has come to a close. No new information is being added and responses are being repeated.

This is one of those subjects that I would prohibit if it were up to me. There is no answer, only strongly felt opinions on both sides... sort of like politics and religion! It can continue to provoke hard feelings from both sides and I will not let that happen.

I've PM'd a couple of the participants who seem determined to provoke and antagonize everyone else but I've decided not to wait on responses. As of now this thread is closed. In the future if/when this subject comes up again, don't be surprized to see it closed sooner than this one was.

Dee
Regulator