Hi all
I have had the good fortune to recently purchase a canon eos 1ds still camera. I also have a lifes worth of slide and negatives that I have been converting using my nikon ed IV (4000dpi) scanner.
I have come to the following conclusions.
In the still image side of image capture there is no question that digital meets and mostly exceeds the resolution, color etc. of film. The only area that film may hold a slight edge is in ultra large prints (in excess of 40x40"). Evidently this can also be overcome using software like genuine fractals but I havent used ti.
I hadnt expected such dramatic results because the scanner has a theoretical resolution of a 22+megapixel camera vs. the 11M eos 1d. As a result of the fantastic quality and speed of image development, I have sold all my still cameras 35mm and Rollei MF stuff.
I still shoot in S8 because the resolution and look is far superior to existing video formats but make no mistake, it wont always be that way. I guess what Im saying is this HD and non HD video sucks compared to film. NO question about it. HD is horrendous for panoramic etc and is flat etc. However it wont be that way for long. Once the technology of still cameras can be applied to motion in a cost effective, storage effective manner there will be no need to continue using film other than for special apps, hobby etc.
One final thing. Since the digital still camera behaves exactly like a film camera(including depth of field, color cast etc.) my technique has dramatically improved. Rather than waiting for the film to be developed, I just shoot and digitally develop. Look at the images, adjust and move on.
Wow. I was always so concious of the cost of film that it was intimidating to a certain extent. $5 per minute is always on my mind. With digital its bang bang bang. Youve already paid so get your moneys worth.
Future of film. Still vs Motion
Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
-
focusgroup
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:01 pm
- Contact:
-
flatwood
- Senior member
- Posts: 1691
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 5:55 am
- Real name: Tabby Crabb
- Location: Tylerville GA USA
- Contact:
i read with interest your post. ive been needing to upgrade digital still cams. right now ive got an old sony mavica73 and my nikon fe does a better job but i really like the convenience digital offers and need at least 5.5 megapixels i understand to get to 35mm resolution. could you give me a tip as to what digital still camera you recommend!!
thanks,
-=rob in rural tennessee usa
thanks,
-=rob in rural tennessee usa
-
mattias
- Posts: 8356
- Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 1:31 pm
- Location: Gubbängen, Stockholm, Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Future of film. Still vs Motion
really? from what i've seen this is the area where digital photography actually has quite some catching up to do.focusgroup wrote:color
/matt
Re: Future of film. Still vs Motion
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Electronic imaging has been around almost as long as chemical and has always lagged behind.mattias wrote:really? from what i've seen this is the area where digital photography actually has quite some catching up to do.focusgroup wrote:color
/matt
There exists today not a single digital camera which can capture the range of contrast film can, nor that can render colours as accurately as film. Not a single one.
-
focusgroup
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:01 pm
- Contact:
With no motive other than the truth. Remember I happen to be the proud owner of an Beaulieu 4008 ZMII, Nikon R10, Bolex ???, Canon scoopic, Canon eos 1n, Rollei 6008(i) (just sold it). etc. Needless to say I have a substantial financial and emotional interest in film. I will never get rid of my S8 stuff because of its unique and unreproducable look.
Respectfully however, Professional digital still cameras absolutely have the color depth, resolution and (shock of shocks) supposed print longevity (using ultrachrome carbon based inks) equal to, or in most cases YES in excess of any current 35mm. Dont believe me? - look at the pro's. Virtually all still photographers have either moved or are in the process of moving or waiting for the day to make the move into digital.
If you shoot raw uncompressed files you are able to manipulate the digital negative in any manner you choose. For example, today I was able to hone my skills using the zone system by an unbeleivable amount using digital. I took extreme film conditions, sever backlighting, extreme highlights and shadows and exposed for various shadows, highliths etc. I took 100 shots and then erased them. Lesson learned, now time to apply to motion picture images.
In summary, not only have digital still cameras come of age, they are absolutely the best tool in which to learn the craft of photography/cinematography. Your capture is instantly viewed and evaluated with no lag time or film development costs.
The downside? The Cost. Ouch!
The prevailing view seems to be that the best camera for the money is the just released canon d10. They can be purchased for around 1.5K US fody only.
I agree however that for projected images, nothing has or will beat film for the near future. DLP sucks as does LCD. Slide film (including K40)is the best.!!! I cant see digital reaching the color depth and contrast range of 35mm projected film.
I am speaking solely about the printed image where light is bounced vs reflected through the image.
Respectfully however, Professional digital still cameras absolutely have the color depth, resolution and (shock of shocks) supposed print longevity (using ultrachrome carbon based inks) equal to, or in most cases YES in excess of any current 35mm. Dont believe me? - look at the pro's. Virtually all still photographers have either moved or are in the process of moving or waiting for the day to make the move into digital.
If you shoot raw uncompressed files you are able to manipulate the digital negative in any manner you choose. For example, today I was able to hone my skills using the zone system by an unbeleivable amount using digital. I took extreme film conditions, sever backlighting, extreme highlights and shadows and exposed for various shadows, highliths etc. I took 100 shots and then erased them. Lesson learned, now time to apply to motion picture images.
In summary, not only have digital still cameras come of age, they are absolutely the best tool in which to learn the craft of photography/cinematography. Your capture is instantly viewed and evaluated with no lag time or film development costs.
The downside? The Cost. Ouch!
The prevailing view seems to be that the best camera for the money is the just released canon d10. They can be purchased for around 1.5K US fody only.
I agree however that for projected images, nothing has or will beat film for the near future. DLP sucks as does LCD. Slide film (including K40)is the best.!!! I cant see digital reaching the color depth and contrast range of 35mm projected film.
I am speaking solely about the printed image where light is bounced vs reflected through the image.
-
Guest
the main problem with digital is that a camera like the eos d1 costs more than a leica with lenses and a lot of film. This will change over time, but..
..but there remains a bitter truth. The limiting factor is the photographer's technique, not the equipment. Shooting handheld with iso 400 film, it really does not matter what camera, what glass are used, and a 5mp prosumer digicam will do just as fine as any consumer film camera.
I admit, i just enjoy these well built nice cameras, but when it comes down to these quality discussions, things get quite academical. If you want quality, take a large format camera, heavy tripod, and take your photo. Otherwise take whatever you like and suits you.
As for digital cameras, my favorite could be pentax *ist d. Could be the camera that makes me sell most of my actual gear, let's see.
..but there remains a bitter truth. The limiting factor is the photographer's technique, not the equipment. Shooting handheld with iso 400 film, it really does not matter what camera, what glass are used, and a 5mp prosumer digicam will do just as fine as any consumer film camera.
I admit, i just enjoy these well built nice cameras, but when it comes down to these quality discussions, things get quite academical. If you want quality, take a large format camera, heavy tripod, and take your photo. Otherwise take whatever you like and suits you.
As for digital cameras, my favorite could be pentax *ist d. Could be the camera that makes me sell most of my actual gear, let's see.
the one problem have with the new technology is that it gets outdated about every 2 years.
not just the equipment but the software /computers needed to view it. glad to know some people can afford to buy new things every time they come out but i cant.
film can still be viewed on the very same equipment that was made 20 + years ago.
since video, there have been several different genres of video that have come and gone. some cant be viewed anymore.
same will be with digital.
tod
not just the equipment but the software /computers needed to view it. glad to know some people can afford to buy new things every time they come out but i cant.
film can still be viewed on the very same equipment that was made 20 + years ago.
since video, there have been several different genres of video that have come and gone. some cant be viewed anymore.
same will be with digital.
tod
-
flatwood
- Senior member
- Posts: 1691
- Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 5:55 am
- Real name: Tabby Crabb
- Location: Tylerville GA USA
- Contact:
thanks for the tip on the pentax diggy camera. ill look at it. i have a press camera from the 1940s, a busch pressman that shoots 6x9 size shots. man, what if you had to go through that every time you wanted to take a few snaps to post on your website (what???). i love the process though and like has already been said, it makes you think about every shot you make. takes all day to make a few shots; but what a day!!!
-=rob in rural tennessee usa
-=rob in rural tennessee usa
-
Guest
-
enigma
foveon
the inrodution of the foveon chip http://www.foveon.com/press_X3_business.html
will help to both improve the coast and color of digital still cameras. This chip makes it so all pixels can have all three colors (red/green/and blue) rather than each pixel being one color. I have seen very larg (poster size) prints that look wonderful. I still think there is just something about film...
will help to both improve the coast and color of digital still cameras. This chip makes it so all pixels can have all three colors (red/green/and blue) rather than each pixel being one color. I have seen very larg (poster size) prints that look wonderful. I still think there is just something about film...
-
Guest
"In summary, not only have digital still cameras come of age, they are absolutely the best tool in which to learn the craft of photography/cinematography."
I'm sorry - but I have to disagree with this. I actually believe otherwise. I feel that if you want to get good - I mean GOOD images from Videography or Digital still photography, you have to understand film. How to meter for it, how to light for it, how to compose a shot, e.t.c.
Anyone can push the little red button on a video camera or still camera and take a picture. But can they make it good? I dunno - I know that the video revolution is on it's way, and yes - I've done many a "film" shot on video then made to look like film with Cinelook. But film still looks so much better.
Film has been around for ages and is tried and true. High Def is still in it's infancy. I have seen some fantastic shots taken with digital still cameras but lets be honest with each other, who can run out and spend $5,000.00 and a 5 mega pixel Sony? When you can run down to your local photo store and spend $400.00 on a used Rollie and shoot 120 film stock for $5.00.
Both mediums have their respected and proper places, Will High Def be used more? Of course it will? Will they stop using film? Not anytime soon.
My two cents
PhilF
I'm sorry - but I have to disagree with this. I actually believe otherwise. I feel that if you want to get good - I mean GOOD images from Videography or Digital still photography, you have to understand film. How to meter for it, how to light for it, how to compose a shot, e.t.c.
Anyone can push the little red button on a video camera or still camera and take a picture. But can they make it good? I dunno - I know that the video revolution is on it's way, and yes - I've done many a "film" shot on video then made to look like film with Cinelook. But film still looks so much better.
Film has been around for ages and is tried and true. High Def is still in it's infancy. I have seen some fantastic shots taken with digital still cameras but lets be honest with each other, who can run out and spend $5,000.00 and a 5 mega pixel Sony? When you can run down to your local photo store and spend $400.00 on a used Rollie and shoot 120 film stock for $5.00.
Both mediums have their respected and proper places, Will High Def be used more? Of course it will? Will they stop using film? Not anytime soon.
My two cents
PhilF
about outdated equipment.. that's up to you to decide when your stuff is outdated. The 4008 i'm curretnly taking apart must have become obsolete for the person who once paid fortune for it in the 70s. My bolex dl8 probably was considered obsolete by it's owner when super8 came out 
It's the same with digital. It never becomes obsolete. YOU change your views and expectations, and you then decide to get newer stuff. If you bought a pc for word processing and spreadsheets, it will still do the job today. But you decided that you want to edit video on your pc, hence you bought a new one. That's fine - but don't blame your old pc
Digital photography evolves quickly. You set your requirements for a digital camera, and then buy one accordingly. In 10 years, the camera wil still do it's job. If you decide meantime that you want medium format quality out of a p&s digicam, well - don't blame the camera! It still does what you bought it for.
16mm does not make super8 obsolete. Strange, since it has much better quality to offer, and does not cost that much more. Chose the quality that is good enough for you, and you'll be fine. Just look at digital equipment the same way you look at "analog" equipment. If it does the job, it's ok.
I stayed away from digital photography because of sveral reasons, one beeing indeed the lesser image quality of the cameras i can afford. Then you have shutter lag, lack of control, mediocre lenses, long start-up times, and so on. The EOS D1 is perfect, but way to big and to expensive for me. I'm looking at the pentax *ist d now, it seems to offer what I need and takes a lot of very fine lenses. Looks like a fine camera, just like a 35mm camera, but digital. Should i buy it, this will be my camera - and i will not bother for the digital camera market until it breaks down.
Flatwood, yes, you're right! The joy of working with that fine euquipment is absolutely rewarding. I don't have large format cameras, but the medium format gives me a nice opportunity for the really slow work. I just love it!
have fun!
It's the same with digital. It never becomes obsolete. YOU change your views and expectations, and you then decide to get newer stuff. If you bought a pc for word processing and spreadsheets, it will still do the job today. But you decided that you want to edit video on your pc, hence you bought a new one. That's fine - but don't blame your old pc
Digital photography evolves quickly. You set your requirements for a digital camera, and then buy one accordingly. In 10 years, the camera wil still do it's job. If you decide meantime that you want medium format quality out of a p&s digicam, well - don't blame the camera! It still does what you bought it for.
16mm does not make super8 obsolete. Strange, since it has much better quality to offer, and does not cost that much more. Chose the quality that is good enough for you, and you'll be fine. Just look at digital equipment the same way you look at "analog" equipment. If it does the job, it's ok.
I stayed away from digital photography because of sveral reasons, one beeing indeed the lesser image quality of the cameras i can afford. Then you have shutter lag, lack of control, mediocre lenses, long start-up times, and so on. The EOS D1 is perfect, but way to big and to expensive for me. I'm looking at the pentax *ist d now, it seems to offer what I need and takes a lot of very fine lenses. Looks like a fine camera, just like a 35mm camera, but digital. Should i buy it, this will be my camera - and i will not bother for the digital camera market until it breaks down.
Flatwood, yes, you're right! The joy of working with that fine euquipment is absolutely rewarding. I don't have large format cameras, but the medium format gives me a nice opportunity for the really slow work. I just love it!
have fun!
-
focusgroup
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:01 pm
- Contact:
Re: PhilF
I personally am unaware of any 5K 5 megapixel Sony camera. I think you may be comparing digital from a couple of years ago. I puchased my digistill and intend on keeping it for many years to come. Point and shoot??? FYI usually I shoot fully manual. Hand held meter when possible. These cameras function exactly like a film camera. The only thing different is the image capturing device and a preview screen.
The same craft is needed to produce consistent good images.
I personally am unaware of any 5K 5 megapixel Sony camera. I think you may be comparing digital from a couple of years ago. I puchased my digistill and intend on keeping it for many years to come. Point and shoot??? FYI usually I shoot fully manual. Hand held meter when possible. These cameras function exactly like a film camera. The only thing different is the image capturing device and a preview screen.
The same craft is needed to produce consistent good images.