Bert Otten

Recently I finished some experiments on the image quality and "real-life" resolution of four film formats (8x10, 4x5, 6x7cm and 35 mm) and 2 digital cameras (6.3 and 5 megapixel). I've given the results of these experiments on my website. After having gone through a first round of improvements, I'm ready for the next one. Please give me your comments. Thanks.

Site with
experimental results

Graeme Hird

Bert,

You've confirmed my thoughts, but I think you might be preaching to the converted here. Still, it is nice to have a real world comparison to refer to.

Can you do another out in the field somewhere?

Cheers, Graeme

__________________
If I were more creative, I'd write something witty here .....

www.scenebyhird.com

Ken Lee

Excellent !

__________________
www.kenleegallery.com

David A. Goldfarb

Good test. Among other things, it resolves my dilemma of whether it would be better to invest in a 5400 dpi scanner for 35mm or in a 6.3 mpix digital body.

Ernest Purdum

I appreciate the amount of work put into this study. My thanks. Some of your comments go over my head because of my ignorance of digital matters. One comment brings up a question, the mention of film advantage in extreme heat and cold conditions. I have been thinking of carrying a digital camera in my car where it would be exposed to more heat than film would tolerate. Is this a bad idea?

Leonard Evens

A very interesting study. I've seen limited results about parts of the picture, including my own, which these results confirm. But you've done a thorough analysis and put it all in one place. Great job!

One comment. You mention at one point that the digital camera had a wider exposure latitude than scanning film. One can do even better by scanning negative film, color or b/w. The use of reversal film has become ingrained because editors and other consumers of professional photography have found it convenient. But if you are going to scan, to my mind, the disadvantages of reversal film outweigh its advantages. It is true that you have the slide to compare for color balance, but there is no special reason that what you see in the slide in a truly accurate rendition of the color in the scene. Using gray cards or just neutral parts of the scene, one can usually do just as well or better with color negative film.

bob moulton

Carefully done and well detailed results. One question: Do you think the use of better digital equipment would alter the results? The bodies and lenses on all the film cameras are probably better than those of the digital cameras. One wonders what would happen if you used a 6.0 or above megapixel DSLR with an OEM lens. And since you include a wide array of film cameras, one also wonders what the results would be if you had the opportunity to include digital results gathered from LF digital backs and from the current crop of 14 MP digital cameras as well as from the hybrid recently released by Leitz.

Of course performing those experiments means you must hit the lottery!

George Stewart

Excellent! Just what I wanted to see. I liked the fact that you used a scanner that most of us can afford. But I'd still like to see the results from pro-level scanners. I also like the idea of adding some outdoor photos. Thanks for your efforts.

George

__________________
George D. Stewart

Archie O. Alcantara

This was an excellent study. As the results from film were scanned, I wonder how this would compare if the film pictures were processed the old fashion way via darkroom ?? I understand that the results could still be constrained by the scanning process of the print to post to the web, but I guess my curiousity is how these result will translate to a printed medium.

Again thanks for sharing this information !!

Ellis Vener

I looked at his comparisons, and i don't think much of them.

with regard to the film tests the problem is the scanner. with the dslr the problem is the lens, and he doesn't say whether he was shooting raw files or jpegs; or how the scans and digital photos were processed in photoshop, I'd love to see the original digital files.

He then takes this flawed basis -- he assumes that the quality level of the 300D is representative of all digital cameras (it isn't) -- and extrapolates flawed conclusions from there.

in sum: with film he is actually evaluating the scanner, and with the DSLR he uses a lens that isn't equal to the quality of the lenses used on the film camera, etc.

his conclusions are flawed