Recently I ran a quick comparison between the 35mm Ektar film I have been using Mostly to collect ideas when out in the landscape and my 21mp EOS 5D mkii. Although there is an obvious winner the 35mm film does a very respectable job. I thought it may be of interest to some here:
A scan from film of any format will always be different from an equivalently sized digital capture simply because film has grain. At the very high resolutions that can be obtained via a drum scan, grain aliasing (noise) will be visible and cannot be completely eliminated.
While your comparison is interesting from a purely academic point of view, most people who scan 35mm film are not going to pop for high end drum scans; the exception being someone who needs to make very large prints.
I must say that you did a fine job with the scans. Scanning color neg is tricky at any format. As an aside, I am considering trying some of the new Ektar in 4x5.
Hi Preston. The comparison is indeed only intended to be of interest. The image was also scanned on a consumer negative scanner (Canoscan 4000us) and it too extracted a remarkable amount of detail. There is more noise than the drum scan but it is still very good. Etkar is a lovely film, after playing with it in 35mm and 120 I'm absolutely planning on getting some 4x5 sheets. Tristan
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 31, 2011 at 2:01 PM
Nice comparison Tristan. I've been pleased with 35m Ektar scanned on my Nikon Ls-4000 as well. The detail from that film in 35mm is quite good and from what I've seen it comes awfully close to what I've seen from the 21MP+ digital bodies out there today.
You mentioned printing and believing the digital capture might print better at a size around 16X24. I think you might be surprised if you actually did print this, potentially without the noise reduction. Film grain can produce an overall better looking print when big enlargements are made. Many digital capture folks will add simulated grain to an image before printing when a big enlargement is needed because it breaks up digital artifacts and can lead to an illusion of greater detail than is actually present. But having it there through all phases does make output sharpening a trickier matter. You might also experiment with a slightly larger aperture on the Howtek to reduce grain aliasing.
Regardless, I would encourage you to look into Ektar in sheet sizes. I've just gotten back a 30"X40" print shot on 4X5 Ektar and it looks great. I'm not crazy about the cyan tone I typically see in the sky with this film, but in almost all other areas I like the rendering and the cyan can be shifted towards blue effectively in post processing.
Hi Mel. My main reason for 6 micron was that I recently scanned a very sharp 6x9 taken with a fuji rangefinder and detail started to vanish at the next step up of 13 micron. However I did scan this negative at 13 micron also but have not processed the file yet. A quick look suggests it may well be better. I'll have to get some prints done with various settings and degrees of processing to compare. Tristan
Posted by Rodney Ninow on February 1, 2011 at 12:49 PM
Curious if you used mirror lock up for these shots? 200mm @ 1/30, even on a tripod could potentially be affected by mirror slap.
Posted by Lon Overacker on February 1, 2011 at 7:36 PM
Tristan,
Nice comparison. Maybe I'm missing something though - I can't find where you specifiy which panel is 35mm and which one is the 5D? Honestly, depending on your frame of mind, background and pre-conceived opinions (talking about me and other viewers) I might guess one over the other? Of course your comment that the 35mm was "respectable" tells me that the panel on the left is the digital 5D? I agree it fairs better in contrast, but honestly at this size, detail doesn't seem all that different. And the 35mm is a second generation presentation; the digital is 1st generation.
Very interesting comparison. I find it interesting too that say as recent as 5 years ago folks were wondering when and at what mega pixel would digital exceed 35mm film. Perhaps it was longer ago than that. But it's interesting now that, and I believe, digital has long since surpassed 35mm and it's funny how it's being compared still - almost in the reverse direction, if that makes sense.
I think more and more folks are chosing the different formats for different reasons such as characteristics, looks and processes rather than just size and enlargements, etc. Good stuff.
The comparison was only made out of curiosity, I was just surprised that the 35mm film held up so well against such a modern digital slr. For some reason I always had it in my mind 35mm film roughly equalled about 12 mp. Personally I'm not interested purely in resolution alone, I use film for its many other qualities.
Rodney - Mirror up was probably used but as the image was taken 6 weeks or so ago I cannot be sure. The camera was certainly on a very solid tripod.
Discussion
7 replieshttp://www.flickr.com/photos/tristan-campbell/5402091316/
Tristan
A scan from film of any format will always be different from an equivalently sized digital capture simply because film has grain. At the very high resolutions that can be obtained via a drum scan, grain aliasing (noise) will be visible and cannot be completely eliminated.
While your comparison is interesting from a purely academic point of view, most people who scan 35mm film are not going to pop for high end drum scans; the exception being someone who needs to make very large prints.
I must say that you did a fine job with the scans. Scanning color neg is tricky at any format. As an aside, I am considering trying some of the new Ektar in 4x5.
--P
You mentioned printing and believing the digital capture might print better at a size around 16X24. I think you might be surprised if you actually did print this, potentially without the noise reduction. Film grain can produce an overall better looking print when big enlargements are made. Many digital capture folks will add simulated grain to an image before printing when a big enlargement is needed because it breaks up digital artifacts and can lead to an illusion of greater detail than is actually present. But having it there through all phases does make output sharpening a trickier matter. You might also experiment with a slightly larger aperture on the Howtek to reduce grain aliasing.
Regardless, I would encourage you to look into Ektar in sheet sizes. I've just gotten back a 30"X40" print shot on 4X5 Ektar and it looks great. I'm not crazy about the cyan tone I typically see in the sky with this film, but in almost all other areas I like the rendering and the cyan can be shifted towards blue effectively in post processing.
Nice comparison. Maybe I'm missing something though - I can't find where you specifiy which panel is 35mm and which one is the 5D?
Very interesting comparison. I find it interesting too that say as recent as 5 years ago folks were wondering when and at what mega pixel would digital exceed 35mm film. Perhaps it was longer ago than that. But it's interesting now that, and I believe, digital has long since surpassed 35mm and it's funny how it's being compared still - almost in the reverse direction, if that makes sense.
I think more and more folks are chosing the different formats for different reasons such as characteristics, looks and processes rather than just size and enlargements, etc. Good stuff.
Lon
Digital is on the right, film on the left. There should be a clear difference (more fine detail and less noise in the digital version), this is a direct link to the hi-res image if you did not find it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristan-campbell/5402091316/sizes/o/in/photostream/
The comparison was only made out of curiosity, I was just surprised that the 35mm film held up so well against such a modern digital slr. For some reason I always had it in my mind 35mm film roughly equalled about 12 mp. Personally I'm not interested purely in resolution alone, I use film for its many other qualities.
Rodney - Mirror up was probably used but as the image was taken 6 weeks or so ago I cannot be sure. The camera was certainly on a very solid tripod.
An interesting review of Ektar and film in general can be found here:
http://www.boeringa.demon.nl/menu_technic_ektar100.htm
Tristan