 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / February 2005How many equiv pixel?
Using Fuji 400 Press film with a Nikon and scanning them into Photoshop using an Epson Flatbed Scanner @3200 dpi @24bit color; how can you equate the pixel count to a digital SLR and to a digital Point and Shoot? > Using Fuji 400 Press film with a Nikon and scanning them into Photoshop > using an Epson Flatbed Scanner @3200 dpi @24bit color; how can you > equate the pixel count to a digital SLR and to a digital Point and Shoot? IMHO (and all the sensible comparison sites on the web), 35mm ISO 100 film, 6MP dSLRs, and 8MP dSLRs are pretty close. 5400 dpi scans of Provia 100F probably edge out the 20D. Maybe. But that's not what you asked. My experience with the ISO 400 color negative films is that they are really really bad compared to Provia 100F, and my experience with flatbed scanners is that they are really really bad compared to real film scanners. That's a lot of really really bad steps you have there between the subject and the print. In contrast, dSLRs are really really good at ISO 400. Slam dunk for the dSLR. No comparison whatsoever. On the other hand, current digital P&S cameras are really really bad at ISO 400. So you've got a more even dogfight* on your hand there. If you shoot your P&S digicam at ISO 50, the images will be worlds better than your Epson scanned ISO 400 film. *: Fight between real dogs. FWIW, my experience scanning medium format film with an Epson flatbed scanner is that 6MP dSLR images look better than 645 at A4 (ouch!), but that if you switch to a real film scanner, 6 and 8 MP dSLRs aren't even close to MF. But that's only for Provia 100F and other quality ISO 100 films. Film quality goes all to hell at ISO 400 and above. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > On the other hand, current digital P&S cameras are really really bad > at ISO 400. Not all that bad really. Some are very good, in fact. If you compare the luma and chroma noise graphs on dpreview from dSLRs (7D, D70, 20D...) to those of the 5mpxl digicams (V1, G5, 5400...), you'll see that it's only one stop better in noise for dSLRs up to ISO800 compared to compact digicams up to ISO400. And I've seen people boasting noise performance from dSLRs at ISO1600, so ISO400 from digicams must not be that bad. In fact, I've seen pictures from the Nikon D70 at ISO 1600, even at resized resolutions, it's still no way comparable to ISO400 on my Sony W1 full res. If dpreview is to be believed, the D70's noise at its best ISO200 is actually worse than that of the Sony V1 at ISO100 and just slightly better than V1's ISO200. Besides, the newer 1/1.8" sensors for 5 and 7mpxls are getting even better these days. As to film ISO400, I've never used print film at ISO400. I don't even like those at ISO200 and have only used them when there was nothing else around. > > On the other hand, current digital P&S cameras are really really bad > > at ISO 400. > > Not all that bad really. Yes, they are. Notice that I said _current_. You are basing your comments on the best of the previous generation. None of the _current_ cameras are even close to the Sony V1. (The V3 is worse than the G6, and its noise reduction messes up the images.) By the way, thanks for the heads up on the V1, though: it's ISO 400 really is very nice. > Some are very good, in fact. If you compare the > luma and chroma noise graphs on dpreview from dSLRs (7D, D70, 20D...) to > those of the 5mpxl digicams (V1, G5, 5400...), Comparing the V1 to the 300D noise patches, I see you are right: the V1 is exactly one stop worse than the 300D. (The V1 is by far the best of the recent consumer dcams.) But the g5 and 5400 are problematic in the noise area, as are the current generation. The g5 and 5400 are major disasters at ISO 400. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong5/page12.asp http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page13.asp If you compare the ISO 800 patches on the 300D/10D to the ISO 400 patches for the G5 and 5400, you'll see that the 300D/10D are significantly better at 800 than the others are at 400. The experience here, and all the comments I've read anywhere basically say exactly that: ISO 400 on those cameras really isn't usable, whereas ISO 800 on the 300D/10D/20D is. That's a big difference. Especially since you can put f/2.0 and f/1.4 lenses on the dSLRs. (The V1's usable ISO 400 puts it in a class by itself amongst P&S dcams.) Grumble. I wish Sony would make a 2/3" 5MP sensor with that technology and build a new model of the F717. The V1's slow lens makes it's nice ISO 400 not all that useful. The F707 was really a pleasure to use, but its ISO 400 was pretty funky. > you'll see that it's only > one stop better in noise for dSLRs up to ISO800 compared to compact > digicams up to ISO400. And I've seen people boasting noise performance from > dSLRs at ISO1600, so ISO400 from digicams must not be that bad. The problem, though, is that ISO 1600 with that much noise is giving us something we've never had before: the 300D + 50/1.4 at ISO 1600 is seriously amazing. ISO 400 with that level of noise (and a 2-stop slower lens) isn't anything to write home about. (Again, I'm ignoring the V1<g>.) > In fact, > I've seen pictures from the Nikon D70 at ISO 1600, even at resized > resolutions, it's still no way comparable to ISO400 on my Sony W1 full res. Yes. But they'd be equivalent to the G5/5400 at ISO 400. > If dpreview is to be believed, the D70's noise at its best ISO200 is > actually worse than that of the Sony V1 at ISO100 and just slightly better > than V1's ISO200. Besides, the newer 1/1.8" sensors for 5 and 7mpxls are > getting even better these days. No, the new sensors are getting worse, since they are packing more pixels in. See the luminance graph at the bottom of this page. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/page14.asp > As to film ISO400, I've never used print film at ISO400. I don't even like > those at ISO200 and have only used them when there was nothing else around. Really. ISO 100 films are quite nice, but ISO 400 is a disaster. The new Fuji professional color negative films are all ISO 160 (120/220 only films), but I haven't tried those yet. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Using Fuji 400 Press film with a Nikon and scanning them into > Photoshop using an Epson Flatbed Scanner @3200 dpi @24bit color; how > can you equate the pixel count to a digital SLR and to a digital > Point and Shoot? Frankly I believe there are so many other factors like color depth optical issues etc. that you are talking apples and oranges. Try both and see for yourself what works for the specific type of work you do and your personal appreciation of the results. The two methods are close enough from a technical point of view to make the only questions the artistic results the deciding factor. That is likely to be different for any two people.  SignatureJoseph Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math > Using Fuji 400 Press film with a Nikon and scanning them into Photoshop > using an Epson Flatbed Scanner @3200 dpi @24bit color; how can you > equate the pixel count to a digital SLR and to a digital Point and Shoot? The fact is, you can't get a clear scan with a flat bed film scanner like yours so any digital image shot with a 2 Mp or greater camera and half decent lens will look sharper and have more colour definition than your scan will. According to Kodak, the native resolution of the average colour film is in the region of 3200 lpi to 4000 lpi (lines per inch) so in theory, if you scan at this dpi, you should capture all the film has to yield - including dust, fibres, grain and the texture of the film itself. Digital images have none of this to contend with and you can also resize them with little loss of sharpness and detail so you film scan is not going to compete very well with a digital image. You might get better results by having the film printed at 11" x 8" with an optical/chemical process and scan it on the Epson. I used to do this with my perfection 4870 to get large (digital) prints before I got a Nikon coolscan dedicated film scanner. Grain is still a problem but colour and sharpness are not. Doug >> Using Fuji 400 Press film with a Nikon and scanning them into >> Photoshop using an Epson Flatbed Scanner @3200 dpi @24bit color; how [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The fact is, you can't get a clear scan with a flat bed film scanner > like yours Maybe that is overstating the case a bit. > so any digital image shot with a 2 Mp or greater camera > and half decent lens will look sharper and have more colour > definition than your scan will. Sorry I can't accept that. > According to Kodak, the native resolution of the average colour film > is in the region of 3200 lpi to 4000 lpi (lines per inch) so in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Digital images have none of this to contend with True, but they have their own problems like dust on the sensor. > and you can also > resize them with little loss of sharpness and detail How is that different than a scanned image? > so you film scan > is not going to compete very well with a digital image. You might get > better results by having the film printed at 11" x 8" with an > optical/chemical process That could be true, assuming a good print to start with. > and scan it on the Epson. I used to do this > with my perfection 4870 to get large (digital) prints before I got a > Nikon coolscan dedicated film scanner. No argument that a good dedicated scanner should outperform a flatbed. > Grain is still a problem but > colour and sharpness are not. > > Doug SignatureJoseph Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math > >> Using Fuji 400 Press film with a Nikon and scanning them into > >> Photoshop using an Epson Flatbed Scanner @3200 dpi @24bit color; how [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sorry I can't accept that. As is usual with these forums... Everyone, including those armchair experts who never actually do anything but read specifications disagree on anything and everything someone else with experience with to say on the subject. It is simpler than Irish math, Joseph. 1. *Flat bed scanners cannot produce a scan of a 35 mm film as good as that from a dedicated film scanner* 2. *Digital images shot with decent digicams of over 2 Megapixels will be sharper, clearer and have more defined colour than an image scanned from a 35mm film on an Epson flat bed scanner* 3. There is no 3. I put that there for the Irish reader so his stout doesn't tip off the armchair when he reads it! Doug >>>> Using Fuji 400 Press film with a Nikon and scanning them into >>>> Photoshop using an Epson Flatbed Scanner @3200 dpi @24bit color; [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 1. *Flat bed scanners cannot produce a scan of a 35 mm film as good > as that from a dedicated film scanner* While there are exceptions, I will generally agree that dedicated scanners are better, but that was not the question was it? > 2. *Digital images shot with decent digicams of over 2 Megapixels > will be sharper, clearer and have more defined colour than an image > scanned from a 35mm film on an Epson flat bed scanner* I don't know what Epson has to offer in flat bed scanners, but I would not otherwise agree with that statement. I also would not suggest that one or the other was always better > 3. There is no 3. I put that there for the Irish reader so his stout > doesn't tip off the armchair when he reads it! I don't care for stout, or ale. About the only alcohol I drink is a little wine. > Doug SignatureJoseph Meehan 26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math >2. *Digital images shot with decent digicams of over 2 Megapixels will be >sharper, clearer and have more defined colour than an image scanned from a >35mm film on an Epson flat bed scanner* You're wrong here. Whilst they are noisier, the scans of 35mm slides I get from my Epson 4870 flatbed are easilly a match for my 10D in terms of sharpness, and that's 6 megapixels, not 2. >>2. *Digital images shot with decent digicams of over 2 Megapixels will be >>sharper, clearer and have more defined colour than an image scanned from a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >from my Epson 4870 flatbed are easilly a match for my 10D in terms of >sharpness, and that's 6 megapixels, not 2. Care to post or send me a 1200 x 1200 pixel full-res scan sample from your 4870? To see where I'm getting at, have a look here: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com >Care to post or send me a 1200 x 1200 pixel >full-res scan sample from your 4870? > >To see where I'm getting at, have a look here: > >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis Seen that before. I'll look into getting you a sample - have some scanning I need to do today (for David Littleboy as it happens - long story), and I'll see what I can do. >>Care to post or send me a 1200 x 1200 pixel >>full-res scan sample from your 4870? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >need to do today (for David Littleboy as it happens - long story), and I'll >see what I can do. OK, check out: http://narcissus.dyndns.org/4870/ProviaCrop.jpg for a raw scan (all I did was levels adjust it, because the Epson auto exposure is crap, and convert to sRGB). ...and: http://narcissus.dyndns.org/4870/ProviaCropUSM.jpg For the same image with a some USM applied (connvert to Lab Colour Mode, sharpen the luminance channel with amount=300, radius=2 pixels, threshold=2 levels). Image details - provia 100F, taken on a Mamiya 7 6*7 rangefinder with the Mamiya 43mm f/4.5 lens at f/8 using a tripod and cable release. The subject is Ely cathedral in Cambridgeshire, UK. If you want to use the images, please take copies rather than linking to them directly, as my broadband connection isn't best suited to hosting a web server. Hope it's useful. >>>Care to post or send me a 1200 x 1200 pixel >>>full-res scan sample from your 4870? [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Hope it's useful. It is, in a way. No offense, but this is nowhere near 4800 dpi. Oh, Epson may have sampled the image at that resolution, but the sharpness isn't anywhere near enough to justify it. Have a look at the 5000 dpi scans from (say) the Minolta 5400 to see what a scan at this resolution should look like. Of course, a couple of the drum scans are sharper still, but that's a seriously unfair comparison. I'll bet if I downsampled my Nikon scans to 1500 and up-res'ed them to 4800, they'd beat or match this Provia scan. I think you will be very surprised at what you see from Dave Littleboy's scan of your slide. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com >It is, in a way. No offense, but this is nowhere >near 4800 dpi. Oh, Epson may have sampled the image >at that resolution, but the sharpness isn't anywhere >near enough to justify it. I'm well aware that flatbed film scanners don't get the same detail as dedicated film scanners at any given resolution, but you can't really beat the 4870 for medium format without spending far more money. You already have a few 4870 scans on your comparison, so I'm surprised that you seem to be surprised. ;-) >I'll bet if I downsampled my Nikon scans to >1500 and up-res'ed them to 4800, they'd beat or >match this Provia scan. Maybe, maybe not. I know from direct experience that the 4870 just edges out a 2700 dpi Nikon Coolscan III on 35mm. >I think you will be very >surprised at what you see from Dave Littleboy's >scan of your slide. I do hope not - I'm expecting it to be quite a bit better than mine! >>It is, in a way. No offense, but this is nowhere >>near 4800 dpi. Oh, Epson may have sampled the image >>at that resolution, but the sharpness isn't anywhere >>near enough to justify it. I use an epson 4870 to scan large format at 3200 ppi. It gets a little less than drum scans at 3300 ppi. I seem to find scanners, whether flatbed or film scanners about 2/3 to 1/2 the ppi rating of the manufacturer compared to drum scans. I rate my 4870 at 4800 "optical" at about 3000 ppi compared to a drum scanner. One factor I've seen is focal point: sometimes it is not on the glass. Everyone should run a test to see where the optimum focus is if they want to maximize resolution. Fortunately, mine is right on for the 4x5 film (which sits just above the glass). An example result, though not full res, but two mosaicked 4x5s: http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.landscape-1/web/colorado.fall.c10.0 1.2003.L4.9536.a+b.c.700.html (it makes a great 78 x 39 inch print at 300 ppi!) Roger >>It is, in a way. No offense, but this is nowhere >>near 4800 dpi. Oh, Epson may have sampled the image [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >a few 4870 scans on your comparison, so I'm surprised that you seem to be >surprised. ;-) Yes and no. I thought maybe there was some variability, (or maybe a lot) and that there might be better specimens to be found. It's not entirely an academic matter for me. My Microtek 2500 -- which I use for scanning 4x5 -- is reasonbly sharp, but has some serious issues with banding on dense negatives. By "reasonably sharp" I mean, judged as 2500 dpi scanner. Plus, it has no dICE, and I really miss that. (Plus, it's a huge honking machine that takes up a lot of space in my study.) >>I'll bet if I downsampled my Nikon scans to >>1500 and up-res'ed them to 4800, they'd beat or >>match this Provia scan. > >Maybe, maybe not. I know from direct experience that the 4870 just edges out >a 2700 dpi Nikon Coolscan III on 35mm. Think so? I worked for a long time with a Polarid Sprintscan 35+, another 2700 dpi scanner from the same generation as that Nikon. I took a 675 x 675 pixel snippet from one of those scans and upsampled it to 4800 dpi. Here's the result: <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/sprintscan_upsampled.jpg> It's plenty grainy (I can hear Dave L. groaning as I write this) but then again it's from Reala. I repeated this exercise with snippets from my Microtek 2500... and have concluded that it's roughly in the same ballpark as the Epson 4870. Here's a couple of samples -- 625 x 625 snippets upsampled to 1200 x 1200. <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/microtek_2500_upsampled.jpg> <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/microtek_2500_upsampled_2.jpg> That's saying quite a lot for the Epson, by the way, given that the Microtek sells for about $2500. OK. Here's the last sample -- the hypothetical I initially suggested. Initally scanned on the LS-8000 at 4000 dpi. Downsampled to 1500 dpi and then back up to 4800 dpi. <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/coolscan_down_and_upsampled.jpg> From all this, I conclude that the Epson 4870 is providing somewhere in the neighborhood of 2000-2500 dpi. Again, not too bad at all considering its cost, and at least as good as that honking Microtek 2500 that I'm using for my LF scans. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com >>Maybe, maybe not. I know from direct experience that the 4870 just edges out >>a 2700 dpi Nikon Coolscan III on 35mm. > >Think so? I worked for a long time with a >Polarid Sprintscan 35+, another 2700 dpi >scanner from the same generation as that Nikon. A friend of mine has the Coolscan III, and we've done a few comparisons. There's not a lot in it, but the 4870 does produce the slightly better results. >OK. Here's the last sample -- the hypothetical >I initially suggested. Initally scanned on the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >that honking Microtek 2500 that I'm using for >my LF scans. Sounds about right. I tried the downsampling to 1500 dpi, then back to 4800 dpi with the sample I posted, and some of the mortar lines which are visible on the original are no-longer discernible afterwards, which suggests that it is doing better than 1500. Also, on the version of the full (6*7 cm) scan which I downsampled and sharpened, there are lines which are obviously distinct on the original (sharpened) scan, but which start to merge together when downsized to 2400 dpi/30 megapixels. What I haven't yet determined to my satisfaction is whether scanning at 2400 dpi does any worse than scanning at 4800 and then downsizing in Photoshop using Bicubic Sharper. I usually downsample to anywhere between 2000 and 3000 dpi for storage/printing, depending on the image. SNIP > What I haven't yet determined to my satisfaction is whether > scanning at 2400 dpi does any worse than scanning at 4800 > and then downsizing in Photoshop using Bicubic Sharper. I've found the Photoshop down-sampling quality to be inferior (Bi-cubic Sharper produces halo and aliasing artifacts) to some of the alternatives. See <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/example1.htm> for examples. Good quality down-sampling and separate sharpening produces better results with lower graininess. Bart >I've found the Photoshop down-sampling quality to be inferior >(Bi-cubic Sharper produces halo and aliasing artifacts) to some of the >alternatives. >See <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/example1.htm> >for examples. That's interesting, thanks. >>I've found the Photoshop down-sampling quality to be inferior >>(Bi-cubic Sharper produces halo and aliasing artifacts) to some of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That's interesting, thanks. You're welcome. Here is a more technical view on the risk of down-sampling artifacts: http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/down_sample.htm Bart > >>I've found the Photoshop down-sampling quality to be inferior > >>(Bi-cubic Sharper produces halo and aliasing artifacts) to some of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bart Nice write up. The problems with Photoshop's down-sampling are fairly well known, what a number of people do is down-sample in steps, kind of a pain but it does work. Up-sampling has some of the same issues and some people do this in steps as well. It is pretty rare that I have a photo that the artifacts are noticeable from the down-sampling in Photoshop, but I have seen it happen. > > >>I've found the Photoshop down-sampling quality to be inferior > > >>(Bi-cubic Sharper produces halo and aliasing artifacts) to some of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > that I have a photo that the artifacts are noticeable from the > down-sampling in Photoshop, but I have seen it happen. The downsampling in PhotoShop CS is set (by default) to bicubic smoothing, which, it is claimed, accomplishes the same result as downsampling in steps. I've used it as a test, and I must admit, the results SEEM the same as "stepped" downsampling. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. SNIP >> Here is a more technical view on the risk of down-sampling >> artifacts: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > artifacts are noticeable from the down-sampling in Photoshop, > but I have seen it happen. Well, I've also tested that one, but overall it wasn't better than some of the others (see http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/temp/Rings1_BCstep10.gif) with steps of 10% reduction (using Photoshop CS's Bicubic resampling). > It is pretty rare that I have a photo that the artifacts are > noticeable from the down-sampling in Photoshop, but I have > seen it happen. As predicted by the above sample. It doesn't look too bad at first glance, but there are problems that really show as soon as you try to sharpen (an RGB mode version of) it. It also is less sharp than some of the other methods, which begs for sharpening, and that's when it causes trouble. Bart >>Care to post or send me a 1200 x 1200 pixel >>full-res scan sample from your 4870? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >need to do today (for David Littleboy as it happens - long story), and I'll >see what I can do. Scans for Dave Littleboy? We can have some fun with this. Here's what you do... there must be some Photoshop filter that adds grain. Or maybe run NeatImage with settings that enhance the grain. There's gotta be a way. Make it look like Tri-X at ISO 3200. I'd love to see the look on Dave's face. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:29:41 GMT, Chris Brown > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Make it look like Tri-X at ISO 3200. I'd love to see > the look on Dave's face. That'll make me happier. He's sending me the film to see if I can do a better job scanning... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 11:29:41 GMT, Chris Brown >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Make it look like Tri-X at ISO 3200. I'd love to see >> the look on Dave's face. ;-> >That'll make me happier. He's sending me the film to see if I can do a >better job scanning... I think it's less a case of *if* you can do better, and more a case of *how much* better you can do, given our respective scanning hardware. >> The fact is, you can't get a clear scan with a flat bed film scanner >> like yours > > Maybe that is overstating the case a bit. I don't think so, flatbed scans of 35mm film (especially asa 400 ones) are pretty pathetic. SignatureStacey >>> The fact is, you can't get a clear scan with a flat bed film scanner >>> like yours [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I don't think so, flatbed scans of 35mm film (especially asa 400 ones) are >pretty pathetic. Well, there's one flatbed scanner that I wouldn't mind owning -- a Creo Scitex Eversmart or IQSmart. Trouble is, they cost a lot more than most dedicated filmscanners, even my trusty LS-8000. Even used, on eBay, I don't think I've seen one sell for under $3K or so. These babies resolve around 5000 dpi, and they use stitching technology to extend that resolution over a considerable width. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com > Using Fuji 400 Press film with a Nikon and scanning them into Photoshop > using an Epson Flatbed Scanner @3200 dpi @24bit color; how can you equate > the pixel count to a digital SLR and to a digital Point and Shoot? Try looking at this site..... http://www.scantips.com/ Tim I scanned some Kodak High Definition ASA400 on a Nikon CoolScan V at 4000 dpi with normal ICE and no GEM and then downsampled it to 4MP to compare it with my CanonPowershot S45 set at ASA200 and I would say the noise/grain is about the same as viewed on the computer screen at 100%. I then did a quarter frame crop of the original 35mm scan and did a 4x6 print on my Canon i960 and I can cannot really see much grain. This should be the same quality if I did a 8x10 of the full frame. If grain in an image is affected by the quality of the lens then this may not be an accurate comparison. This was not a tripod shot either. Also I looked at comparison images on www.imaging-resource.com of the S45 at ASA200 to the 300D at ASA800 and I thought the noise was about the same. From all this I think at 8x10 ASA400 CN film is better than 4MP Digital P&S and Digital SLR is better than the film. I think this is consistent withthis graph http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html Chris > Using Fuji 400 Press film with a Nikon and scanning them into Photoshop > using an Epson Flatbed Scanner @3200 dpi @24bit color; how can you equate > the pixel count to a digital SLR and to a digital Point and Shoot? My own experience with ASA 400 film has been pretty dismal. I shot film for close to 30 years before switching to digital. Having a rather large collection of slides and negatives I invested in a film scanner, A Minolta Dimage Scan Dual III, not a high end scanner but it give way better results then I can get off my flat bed scanner. I tended to shoot both 100 and 400 ASA film, at the time the largest prints I would make would be 4 x 6 or there about. I really thought that when I got the film scanner there would be all these great photos, it turned out to be a mixed bag. For the lower ASA film I got good scans and was delighted to see that many photo that looked bad on the prints that I got back from the film processor look good when scan and printed. On the down side the 400 ASA film it really not good for prints larger then 4 x 6. Others seem to be saying that they are getting good 8 x 10 prints from 400 ASA film, I would like to see a scan of one of these photos. Maybe others are getting more out of a roll of 400 ASA film then I did but when I went back over all the photos I took I really wish I had never bought a roll of 400 film. I know there are film scanners that can pull out more detail from film then mine, but from what I have seen that detail is simply not there when the speed of the film is 400 or higher. Scott |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.