really big prints from 35mm film and digital

MikeBcos · Dec 17, 2008

One thing I didn't notice mentioned in the film was scanning, the way the 35mm negative was scanned will have a huge impact on the quality of image you get from it, the experience and skill of the scanner operator would also make a big difference.

The test was interesting but I would doubt the findings until I knew more about the scanning.

Either way though, I don't really care, digital is great, I love film, I don't care which is "better", they are both great for what I want.

Dubious Drewski · Dec 17, 2008

epp_b said:
ISO 200 on the D700 and ISO 50 on film would have been a much more accurate comparison.

It would have been a more accurate comparison because that is at each medium's forte, sure. I get that. But being able to shoot at iso400 and having it look at good as iso50 automatically makes the D700 the winner. Remember, studio work isn't the only use for these cameras. In the real world, having a cleaner high iso means you get the shots. It's makes every other aspect of shooting easier. End of story. So like I said, it doesn't matter that they used iso400 when you and I know they should have used 100 for in the studio, think of the practical applications of this in the real world.

epp_b said:
... digital sheep ....

Don't do that. Just don't. Let's keep it clean and free of embarrassing name-calling.:thumbup:

epp_b · Dec 17, 2008

It would have been a more accurate comparison because that is at each medium's forte, sure. I get that. But being able to shoot at iso400 and having it look at good as iso50 automatically makes the D700 the winner. Remember, studio work isn't the only use for these cameras. In the real world, having a cleaner high iso means you get the shots. It's makes every other aspect of shooting easier. End of story. So like I said, it doesn't matter that they used iso400 when you and I know they should have used 100 for in the studio, think of the practical applications of this in the real world.

Who shoots somewhere other than a studio when they're printing a billboard?

panocho · Dec 17, 2008

Dubious Drewski said:
It would have been a more accurate comparison because that is at each medium's forte, sure. I get that. But being able to shoot at iso400 and having it look at good as iso50 automatically makes the D700 the winner. Remember, studio work isn't the only use for these cameras. In the real world, having a cleaner high iso means you get the shots. It's makes every other aspect of shooting easier. End of story.

Still don't agree. By the same token, one could argue that a large format camera is completely useless, because in the real world you're not likely to be carrying such a monster when you can easily have a handy pocket camera that gets you the shot. As with the race-metaphor, I think that such kind of argument is tailor-made for the digital to make it look a winner, and not considering seriously a fair comparison (if there is one... although definitely there is no need for one!!).

That being said, I think that the "propaganda" video, which is what see there, is completely unnecesary. I mean, does anybody sense film cameras as a threaten to digital??!!

Dubious Drewski said:
Don't do that. Just don't. Let's keep it clean and free of embarrassing name-calling.:thumbup:

:thumbup:

Dubious Drewski · Dec 17, 2008

epp_b said:
Who shoots somewhere other than a studio when they're printing a billboard?

And why is that? Think of the door this type of power opens. People usually don't shoot billboards in any setting other than a studio because it's easiest to achieve the quality and detail required there. But what if your camera is powerful and accurate enough for you to be able to achieve this level of control and detail in any setting, not just in the studio. That's a really big benefit.

Don't you understand the implications of this?

What if, in say ten years, your top-end camera can be bumped up to iso 25,600 or higher, you are able to shoot action at 1/4000th indoors with natural light and an optimal aperture of f8 or even f16. And imagine that the resulting photo had the clarity and accuracy to be printed on a 17 meter billboard. The same clarity and accuracy that had only been achievable in the past with iso50 film in a tightly controlled studio. This ability is not far off from what we can do now with modern full frame DSLRs. And it's not unreasonable to expect this type of power within the next ten years.

Can you seriously not see how this is a benefit? Really?

MikeBcos · Dec 17, 2008

Dubious Drewski said:
And imagine that the resulting photo had the clarity and accuracy to be printed on a 17 meter billboard. The same clarity and accuracy that had only been achievable in the past with iso50 film in a tightly controlled studio. This ability is not far off from what we can do now with modern full frame DSLRs. And it's not unreasonable to expect this type of power within the next ten years.

Can you seriously not see how this is a benefit? Really?

I'm guessing that most people here have never seen a billboard up close. i used to print them for a living. The original artwork would usually be 11x17, it was scanned and separated CMYK film output, still at 11x17.

These films were then projected onto 60 inch metal plates in sections, the final resolution on the billboard was 15-30 dpi. You don't need much clarity and detail for it to look good on a billboard.

In fact, too much detail is detrimental, billboard images have to be clear and simple so people can take them in in their entirety in the few seconds it takes to drive past them.