Resolution - film versus digital

[aniMal]

I wonder - is there anyone here who knows what would be the maximum resolution on film?

My situation is that I have been using a combination of M8 and Mamiya RZ67 when doing serious/personal stuff for a while. I love working with the M8, it gets very close to working with a film M.

Just days ago I bought an M7, and immediately felt that I will be using it a lot...

What I wonder about is what kind of resolution I could count on if I really get into 35mm again? The reason I use 6X7 is that it is a cheap way of beating the hell out of most digital cameras when it comes to tone curve and resolution.

Some say that a 35mm is equivalent to max 12 megapixel - but is that with 100 ISO film and medium quality optics?

What is possible with say a sharp 50mm on f8 and 50 ISO black and white?

I have been looking at 7000dpi scanners that are not too expensive, would really be something if I could use my M7 as a kind of booster alongside the M8. Might then even sell the Mamiya gear to get another M8...

 

[Turtle]

the honest answer is nothing close to MF. 35mm with B&W is about flexibility and speed, not resolution, although with my ZM lenses I am consistently amazed at the results, esp in the corners. I can't comment on the digital.

a 7000 dpi scanner is unlikely to provide you with a better file than a 4000/5400 (most seem to agree with this). If you like using the M7 and get the shots you like then that is surely all the answer you need. There is no need to beat anything. My 35mm shots that sit in frames make me very happy. I feel no less happy because they are 35mm! I personally hate digital workflow so when i want speed i pick up the leica. Thats all there is to it.

 

[aniMal]

Its not the most important thing to me this - but it would be nice to have a compact & cheap way of getting that little extra.

I would not think it is possible to get a real resolution of 7200 dpi, but I suspect that having those files to downsample would perhaps be an idea? Guess it needs actual testing out...

I am aware that digital now is getting very close to 645. I also know that standard 200/400 film and a standard scan at 3200 dpi gives me a file that is bigger than from the M8, but not as crisp and sharp!

I guess colour and B&W in this regard is totally different cases. I will try to make some tests with 50 ISO B&W in the near future - perhaps it could be brought up to something like 15-16 mpix...

But of course, 3200 dpi scan from the mamiya are just great!

 

[Turtle]

I shoot 35mm when I don't care about grain. sometimes Delta 100, sometimes TriX. If I am worried about grain, I always go for 6x7 or LF. I guess the M8 would be the ideal candidate in such cases that you need super smooth images and the fast handling. In that regard teh M7 offers a unique feature - instant grain without post processing!

 

[aniMal]

Hehe - as long as the grains look good on the scan it is OK...

I also like getting the colours of film - so far I have used chrome mostly.

I have a very light and small japanese wooden 4X5 that I am searching for optics to use with. When I have used the Mamiya it has always been in situations and places where I could have used large format just as easily.

The best thing is that I could get the M8, M7 and 4X5 into a small camera bag! I would need at most 20-30 exposures of 4X5 on most trips, perhaps not more than 10.

I never bothered with anything but 35mm before, but now that digital has the edge I like using old & cheap cameras to produce really great files with scanned film. Also my projects suit slow & more technical perfect photography now....

 

[Keith]

Resolution is not the issue for me between the two mediums though it may be important for others. The lack of dynamic range is what bothers me with the images from my M8. I shot a series of photographs the other day with Tri-X in quite extreme lighting conditions in a comparatively dim room with strong external light coming in via the surrounding glass walls ... I took a series of bracketed shots with the M8 out of curiosity and also to see how it would cope ... and to be honest it didn't.

The digital images were sharp and detailed in comparison to the 400 film but the highlights were horrible, and for me, totally out of control. Maybe my post processing skills are beyond dealing with this sort of thing but it annoyed me sufficiently that I just deleted all the files in disgust!

 

[daveywaugh]

the honest answer is nothing close to MF. 35mm with B&W is about flexibility and speed, not resolution, although with my ZM lenses I am consistently amazed at the results, esp in the corners. I can't comment on the digital.

a 7000 dpi scanner is unlikely to provide you with a better file than a 4000/5400 (most seem to agree with this). If you like using the M7 and get the shots you like then that is surely all the answer you need. There is no need to beat anything. My 35mm shots that sit in frames make me very happy. I feel no less happy because they are 35mm! I personally hate digital workflow so when i want speed i pick up the leica. Thats all there is to it.

I would back up Turtle's comments completely. Of course there are also much more important factors than resolution for most people - dynamic range (particularly highlight definition), colour, aesthetics etc. where film reigns supreme still... although I haven't used or really seen much MF digital. Frankly, going to 35mm film for resolution to me seems like a backward step.

I'd say a 4000dpi scan of Velvia/Provia 50/100 on a Coolscan 5000 would be my imaginary limit before going to a drum scanner. And unless you have your own, costs are too prohibitive too outsource that scanning. An Epson V700 scan (as low-end as it might seem) of a 6x7 spanks anything in 35mm regardless of scanner IMHO 🙂

You know, I totally understand the advantages of a 35mm rangefinder (I love them) but could never understand why people spend sooo much money on high end lenses imply for 'resolution'. Hey I'm the first to admit that there's bucket loads of character on a nice Leica lens but no 50mm summicron will give better results than even a mid level MF lens - of course it's just neg/trannie size we are taking here so don't flame me OK 🙂

 

[bmattock]

I basically agree with everyone else in this thread. I believe that the best digital cameras can now produce files that are on par with most 35mm film cameras when the film is scanned using the typical 4000 dpi dedicated scanner.

That is not to say that digital is 'better' than film, because there are other factors in play, including exposure latitude, which color print film still has over digital in many cases.

However, they are close enough that I would not quibble over a general statement of equivalence at this time.

And, like the others so far, I would also state that MF film still womps the daylights out of the best 35mm equivalent dSLR cameras in capability. Again, that is not to say that MF film is always superior to digital, because there are always other factors in play, including lens capabilities.

As to scanning - because film is not infinitely capable of recording detail, and because lenses are not infinitely capable of resolving detail, there comes a point when more is just a waste of time (spent scanning) and space (on your hard drive). Despite improvements in scanner technology, there is a finite amount of useful data stored in film which can be extracted through scanning. Once that point is reached, higher scanning resolution is wasted.

A simple analogy is to scan a printed page in a magazine. Very quickly one realizes that a higher scan dpi setting does not improve the resulting scan, and in fact, can begin to cause degradation in the 'viewability' of the resulting image file. While film packs much more information than a printed magazine page, the analogy holds true - once the maximum has been reached, that's pretty much it. An electron beam scanner at the sub-atomic level would not reveal a better photo, if you see what I mean.

In general, I prefer a nicely-scanned 6x6 or 6x9 negative at 3200 dpi over any full-frame digital SLR file for quality. That may not always be the case - film has reached its zenith, more or less, and digital continues to improve. But it is my opinion at this time.

With regard to the question someone asked about graininess:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain

Most are rated in a graininess scaled called 'RMS' while Kodak preferred a scale called 'PGI'.

Here's an old guide that was printed back when photography magazines still did film comparisons. RMS and PGI values listed for most.

http://www.photographic.com/buyer'sguides/98/

 

[dfoo]

Not to rain on your parade, but in my experience Velvia is pretty crappy on a v700 🙁 For color kodak NC 160 worked out nicely though!

 

[aad]

I guess the resolution question is really answered by the size of print you intend to make. Most of my prints are 8x10 or 5x7, and generally look fine at 1600 dpi scan resolution.

Oh, yeah, Velvia doesn't do well on a 4490, either. At least not in 35mm.

 

[Al Kaplan]

A lot of it depends on what you're shooting...and why? Edward Weston and Ansel Adams went with large format and oft times made contact prints. HCB and Gene Smith shot 35mm. A lot of HCB's best stuff was shot with lenses some of you guys would thrown in the trash while Smith often pushed the hell out of his Tri-X, getting negatives that most of you guys would have thrown in the trash.

A generation hence I wouldn't be surprised to find the critics hailing the great eye of some now unknown digital photographer who got featureless clipped highlights and shadows lacking a trace of detail, but could capture the moment.

 

[emraphoto]

here here journeyman

 

[bmattock]

Forget about the direct comparisons. The reduction of photographic excellence to a single, numerical scale is a marketing department's dream. There are so many more forum threads, and even 'respectable' journal articles, on the latest, highest megapixel cameras than on talented photographers. Try looking for info on how the masters compose, frame and expose their shots. Or even how they get to locations and why. Think of any of Salgado's images, which were probably shot on Tri-X, and ask yourself if the term 'megapixel' even occurred to him when he was creating it.

It is not unfair to compare film and digital, and objective measurements are all we can measure on, after all. No one is disputing worth or value or beauty, but in the end, metrics have value, even if they do not constitute art.

I agree that buying based on finest grain or highest megapixel value is, in an of itself, somewhat meaningless. However, such measurements have their place.

Once upon a time, magazines did extensive comparisons between films, lenses, and cameras, and such things were not indicative of the sort of photos that could be made with even the lowest-rated gear or film by someone who knew what they were doing - but they were good general indicators of what one could expect.

Metrics have value - they just don't have all the value.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Mosty what those metrics did was more for the magazines than for the readers. All those articles and greatly magnified images, the photos of test charts, the tables of statistics filled pages so people would actually pay good money for the magazine, and be exposed to all of those alluring ads. The ads paid for the magazine. When they did a feature story on a photographer and his/her work the creative aspects were glossed over in favor of reviewing the photographer's choice of camera and lens, the type of film and developer, and even the printing paper. Most of those decisions about film, paper, and chemistry were based more on availability and cost than anything. You shot 4 X 5 Ektachrome because most shops carried it and most labs in the U.S. weren't set up to process Agfachrome or Anscochrome, especially in sheet film sizes. You shot 35mm Ektachrome because you could get it processed in 2 hours and Kodachrome took a couple of days. Fuji was an obscure curiosity from a far away land.

Even here on the Rangefinder Forum it's difficult to start a thread discussing a photographer's creative work flow. It always seems to end up talking about which magic lens makes the photographs so great, which secret film and developer combo. Nobody likes to admit that it takes time and practice, that a lot of film and paper ends up in the trash both during the learning and afterwards as well. It has very little to do with what lens, which camera. The over riding discussions of equipment here have more to do with preserving the value and new finish of those expensive precious lens. That's not what photographers should be concerned with.

 

[Beemermark]

I guess the resolution question is really answered by the size of print you intend to make. Most of my prints are 8x10 or 5x7, and generally look fine at 1600 dpi scan resolution.

I think this is really the point. I shoot everything from 5x7 to 35mm. What's important is the final print size. I know little to nothing about digital but for 35mm the biggest print with a tripod and excellent optics might be 11x14. An 8x 10 print is the usual maximum in street shooting. This is very subjective, I have no idea what you can do with digital.

 

[bmattock]

It always seems to end up talking about which magic lens makes the photographs so great, which secret film and developer combo. Nobody likes to admit that it takes time and practice, that a lot of film and paper ends up in the trash both during the learning and afterwards as well. It has very little to do with what lens, which camera. The over riding discussions of equipment here have more to do with preserving the value and new finish of those expensive precious lens.

I agree, and one of the things you'll hear me stating again and again is use Tri-X, D-76, and get good at it before venturing off into never-never land with aspirin tablets and whatnot.

However, I also recognize that a) people like to experiment, b) it appears to be human nature to chase the 'magic bullet' - some never get over it, but so what, c) metrics still matter, I can't help it if people interpret them to mean more than they do, and d) that's not the question the O/P asked.

That's not what photographers should be concerned with.

In whose opinion?

We have tinkerers, fondlers, collectors, and photographers of every sort here. Not all are concerned with the final image as much as others think they ought, and frankly, of the ones that are, a disproportionate number of them think that if a print didn't come out of a chemical bath, it isn't photography - so much for what photographers ought to be concerned about.

It's all a load of bollocks - we do what we do. Some enjoy the destination, some enjoy the ride, and some like to drink the window washer fluid.

 

[Al Kaplan]

The average non photographer views a print from a distance where they can easily see the entire picture without undue scanning of the eyes. That would be a minimum of perhaps two feet for an 11 X 14. Only other photographers get close enough to stick their nose in the picture. If you make a 24 X 36 inch print, framed and on the wall, people tend to stand back four or five feet, perhaps more. At those distances you'll not be overwhelmed by either the pixels or the grain. Give them good composition and interesting subject matter and they're happy. It never enters their mind that the picture might have been a bit sharper with a different lens at f/1.4, a different film or developer with a one stop push.

 

[maddoc]

Metrics have value - they just don't have all the value.

Brilliant !

Cheers,

Gabor

 

[dovevadar]

I think the main concern you all have to look at is the colour depth. M8 in processor produces 8bit DNG and they claim it is no different from 16-bits of colours. Hell no. I personally find the m8 whites very very disappointing. My 40D produced better colours but its another generation of sensors. But I still cannot believe they kept that same sensor for 8.2. Well, time will tell....

this was taken with H2D 2 in a studio enviroment, compressed as tiff and save as jpg. I shot the model some 2 meters away at f16 and save the final jpg at 10% size? 16bits of colours gives you so much more depth. gold is gold. dslr might try to give you some shades of yellow and trick you in beliving its gold and thats about it. Thats why jewellery photographers stick to MF or LF.

To sum things up, MF with a digital back is more than overkill. For film to catch up, you should go for 5400dpi optical scan at least 16bits. If you scan at 14bits then you are missing some 40000+ colours 🙂

 

[Turtle]

I was going to get myself a Hassy, but for that kind of money I decided on a Mamiya 7II and a bunch of lenses. Cheaper than the Hassy, comes with a meter (imagine that!) and shoots 6x7. Came very close to getting a Fuji RF but I didn't like the fixed lenses.

Yes, the ZMs are impressive.

I used to shoot a lot of mono LF LF and will do again once I get out of Kabul; however, 'what I do' has changed a great deal since being presented with these circumstances. I now shoot M bodies and a Mamiya 7 (they are both small for their format and discreet) and could not be happier. I just don't care about technical quality as much as I used to. The more pleased I am with my own work, it seems to matter less and less. All I care about is that, depending on what I am trying to achieve, I can take certain things for granted from a technical perspective, but I frequently find myself moving away from resolution towards flexibility (my latest revelation was the 0.58 finder because it allowed me to connect to and see things in the way I wanted when using a 28).

I love film, but that's not to say there is anything wrong with digital. I don't listen to vinyl, but I do think film is the vinyl of the photographic world and it works for me. I like the crackle, sometimes. It is comforting, organic and fits with my way of relating to the world. It is not clean, which is precisely the point when i choose to use it. I don't love film for any technical reason really. Its about feel; engagement. between 35mm and 6x7 I can get everything from no grain to a blizzard, so I am happy.