[JohnInIndy]

If you scan film or prints do you retain the film feel? Or do you still reduce it to the level of a digital camera? Digital is either on or off. Film has more depth. Can you really capture the depth of the film?

---

Last edited by JohnInIndy; 02-20-2012 at 10:05 AM.

[demp10]

The short answer is yes. With enough bits you can capture anything.

Film being analog has a continuous feel up to its grain size. Once you oversample it in digital beyond that point, you capture all of it.

If you like the grainy feel of film you can add it (and control it) in digital also.

I am not sure what you mean by "reduce it to the level of a digital camera". What camera do you have in mind? Are you referring to medium or large format films?

Typical 35mm color film and commercial processing is roughly equivalent to a 6-8 MP digital image. Most DSLRs of 10+ MP have much higher resolution and dynamic range, so there is no comparison to film. And professional printers will rival any mainstream wet process for paper.

So if you scan a typically processed film you will end with an image reminiscent of low res digital cameras, but that's the limitation of the source. The digital process will reveal issues that otherwise masked by the analog nature of film. Of course you can always add special effects to "correct" or "enhance" according to your likes.

[JohnInIndy]

According to this guy you need another digit to the MP count.

How many places are left that won't, at one point or another convert to digital and print from that?

Guess what I really was asking is do you also retain all of the information if it is converted to digital? Or will a digital capture as much information as film? Guess a little more research on my part answered my question. No.

So why do people still shoot film and then lower it to digital instead of a full analog process where all of the detail is retained?

The Digital Resolution of Film
So how many pixels does it take to describe all the detail we can get from film?
Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero.
Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50.
320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.
35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters.
To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.
But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.
Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you'd need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.
That's just 35mm film. Pros don't shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4x5."
At the same rates, 2-1/4" (56mm square) would be 313 MP, and 4x5" (95x120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP, with no Bayer Interpolation. A digital camera with Bayer Interpolation would need to be rated at better than 2 gigapixels to see things that can be seen on a sheet of 4x5" film.

[demp10]

According to this guy you need another digit to the MP count.

I'll take that with a "grain" of salt

That may be the theoretical limit of that film, but it does not take into account the rest of the system that includes a camera and a lens. Diffraction alone will limit that figure significantly.

Just scan one of your best negatives and see how far you can go.

[LesDMess]

No doubt we know what film can capture and we simply want to an accurate representation of it when we translate it to a digital file that we can use.



Link to larger version -> http://www.fototime.com/3EDD4D13204247B/orig.jpg

[twitch]

If you scan film or prints do you retain the film feel?

Absolutely you do!

[Venturi]

A good flatbed scanner will resolve to at least 2400ppi. Roughly 7MP for 35mm film. That's the "official" line.

My purely anecdotal evidence from running my Epson V700 for a whopping grand total of about 10 rolls of 120 indicates to me that I'm getting a bit better resolution at 3200ppi than I am at 2400 or 4800 (this could easily be because I'm getting better at scanning). I plan on performing more exhaustive empirical testing as I run my next roll of Ilford Delta 100 through it.

[stevebrot]

If you scan film or prints do you retain the film feel? Or do you still reduce it to the level of a digital camera? Digital is either on or off. Film has more depth. Can you really capture the depth of the film?

For B&W...pretty much the same as what you might accomplish in a wet darkroom situation using variable contrast paper and conventional procedures. I personally feel that a good silver print has deeper and more yummy blacks, but that may not be the case with a well-made digital print on premium stock. The drawing card for "figital" work flow is the qualities of the capture medium and the ease of digital processing of the positive scan.

As for color...My "figitital" images are equivalent to or better (the MF stuff) than what I get with the dSLR and much better than what I can do with my home darkroom and enlarger.


Steve

[JohnInIndy]

I'll take that with a "grain" of salt

That may be the theoretical limit of that film, but it does not take into account the rest of the system that includes a camera and a lens. Diffraction alone will limit that figure significantly.

Just scan one of your best negatives and see how far you can go.

The same situation you have with a film camera vis a vis the lenses etc. pertain to digital as well. You can still get flare, distortion, diffraction, etc in both. I've had some film drum scanned then printed. I've had the same negs wet processed and yes I see the difference. It is slight but I still can see it.

Les, your image is irrelevant since it's a digital file. Any difference between film and digital was lost as soon as it was ones and zeros. Would you like me to send you accurate representations of money or do you want the real thing?

[LesDMess]

John your money analogy would be more relevant to my comparison in the form of it transferring by hand or transferring by wire - both are real. However, there is a penalty assessed in a wire transfer. Much in the same way I don't believe my Coolscan makes a 100% acquisition.

If you can cordially expand on your comment about it being irrelevant due to conversion to 1's and 0's I would be interested.

[stevebrot]

Les, your image is irrelevant since it's a digital file. Any difference between film and digital was lost as soon as it was ones and zeros. Would you like me to send you accurate representations of money or do you want the real thing?

...and your money is an inaccurate representation of labor, but it does an adequate job and we have all found a way to live with it.

I have often read the statement that a scanned image from a film negative is just a digital capture. If that is the case, what do you say about a traditional silver-based print from the same negative? The photo paper that is used in the printing process has a very restricted dynamic range and fairly limited tonality depending on material, technique and processing. Great prints are the combination of great skill in the darkroom coupled with great skills with the camera. No traditional silver print process is capable of expressing the full tonal range most modern B&W films...period.

I have a good amount of experience with the traditional darkroom (since the late 1960s) and a bit less with a scanner and from your comment, I can tell that you have little experience with one or the other or perhaps both. With a good scanner and appropriate technique I have found that I can maximize the performance of a negative in ways I could only dream of when doing wet prints. That last comment relates to B&W. When it comes to color, give me the scanner any day of the week.


Steve

(...truth be known, although I shoot a fair amount of color film in 35mm, I prefer my dSLR for color work in the smaller formats for the most part, though even then I really like my film cameras over the K10D. I shoot Ektar 100 6x7 with the view camera because I can't afford what that kind of quality costs with digital capture media.)

[Silent Street]

If anything is lost in the analogue-to-digital (hybrid) workflow, it is the original gamut of film vs the digital gamut (film is much wider while sRGB is narrower), and the whole business does involve skilled post-work e.g. colorimetrics, dusting, etc. My 120 scans are 4800 input and downsampled to 300dpi at the lab. Soon a 2.4m high print will be produced from my 67.

[westmill]

Ive always been intrested in this subject. ive only ever judged the quality by the print though and Ive never had a scanner.
In my veiw, even my old 5 million pixel Olympus E1 produced as good and sharp prints as my 35mm.
The D300 at 12 milion pixels produces big brints every bit as detailed as my old 645 cameras.
My K5 at 16milion pixels seems to me to be far finer detailed.
Now Im reading that thing at the top thats stating you need 313 million pixels to match the captured detail of medium format ?
Am I missing something here ? What size file do you get from say a scanned 645 neg ?
The E1 was about 3mb... D300 about 6mb K5 13mb files.
I dont know how scanners work, but Im assuming they must create a jpg from the neg.

[stevebrot]

What size file do you get from say a scanned 645 neg ?

Depends on scan resolution. With a Nikon 9000 ED you can get a true 4000 dpi scan. Do the math for the 645 negative and you will get the number of megapixels.

2.36" x 4000 x 1.77" x 4000 = ~67 megapixels

The actual file size depends on the file format. For lossless formats such as non-compressed TIFF and BMP, the number of megabytes is:

(number of pixels) x (bit depth for each color) x (the number of colors per pixel)/8

Yes, the files are huge. JPEGs are usually smaller depending on the amount of compression applied. Mind you, that is just data. Most of those pixels could be junk. The actual quality depends on the lens and the film and technique.

Steve

[westmill]

Depends on scan resolution. With a Nikon 9000 ED you can get a true 4000 dpi scan. Do the math for the 645 negative and you will get the number of megapixels.

2.36" x 4000 x 1.77" x 4000 = ~67 megapixels

The actual file size depends on the file format. For lossless formats such as non-compressed TIFF and BMP, the number of megabytes is:

(number of pixels) x (bit depth for each color) x (the number of colors per pixel)/8

Yes, the files are huge. JPEGs are usually smaller depending on the amount of compression applied. Mind you, that is just data. Most of those pixels could be junk. The actual quality depends on the lens and the film and technique.

Steve

Thank you for that !
Im strugling to to get my head around it though.
Im thinking now, that Im rather posative that Im getting far more finer detail in prints than I ever did
using my 645 gear. I have big prints for me to compare
images that i took many moons ago on a Bronica ETRS and Bronica RF645 and of course lots from various 35mm. I also know the quality is high enough on the 12 million pixel to outperform the best of lenses and quality in itself rests on the lens. aaagh OK i think ive got it lol.
You say a lot could be junk ! So most likely its actualy mostly junk. The scanner will scan at 4000dpi even if there is nothing to pick up. Ok i understand now.
Im trying hard to wrap my head around this now
In some ways then its a bit meaningless.
Then Im also thinking they are huge files, and that
they will have come from a large surface area thats
applicable to format size. This would hint along the lines
of the possability of creating humungously huge prints
without breaking up even if there isnt as much detail.
Does that sound like a fair summary ?