Thinking bout going to digital

[Ysarex88 82]

Are you going to explain it or are you just going to say "Wrong!" and move on? Because if I'm wrong, it would be nice to be educated about something instead of just being scolded.

And I would also like to clarify something: when you say "state-of-the-art sensors" do you mean the sensors that are in any current digital cameras? (Current meaning the last couple of years - not older digital sensors) Or does it refer only to the top-of-the-line digital cameras?

I don't want to get involved in the film/digital head butting here just want to keep the tech accurate. Digital continues to develop at a fairly rapid pace. Back a decade or more especially when most digital cameras were equipped with 10 bit A/D converters you could compare film and digital dynamic range and make a case for film. We're now solidly using 14 bit A/D converters in modern digital cameras with 16 bit converters showing up at the very high end. Yes -- top of the line stuff like a Nikon D800 which is very expensive. It would take two years of my film costs back in 1995 to buy one today. Film is mature tech and if improvements are made they are incremental at best. In 2008 I was shooting a 10 mgpx camera with a 10 bit A/D converter. Your statement may have been accurate then. Do the math and compare the difference between 2^10 and 2^14 and then try next year's 2^16. Film dynamic range got passed up somewhere between 2^12 and 2^14.

Joe

So the dynamic range of a very-top-end digital sensor is better than that of film.

Yes.

Does that hold true for entry-level or mid-range DSLRs?

For the mid-range now yes -- something like a Nikon D5xxx series. The D5100 is equipped with a 14 bit A/D converter. Some of the entry level cameras are still 12 bit. 10 bit is over.

And I assume that this comparing the sensor against the film emulsion and size that has the best performance in terms of dynamic range (since not all films are created equal, as you know), yes? This is not an argument, it's a question.

Not all films are created equal. You'll get the very best dynamic range from 70mm Kodak Tri-X professional (note: that is medium format) which is capable of reaching 3.5 to almost 4D depending on processing. Color films are all going to be less to a degree. A 12 bit A/D converter is 3.6D.

In both instances those are the "lab" numbers. "Lab" numbers can get pretty silly when you have to roll up your sleeves and do the job. Heaven help you if you ever try and print a 3.8D Tri-X neg. We used to keep a chisel in the lab to tease the noobs. When they processed a neg like that we'd hand them the chisel and suggest they shave some off before taking it into the darkroom. The "lab" numbers for digital sensors are equally unrealistic. That's one of the reasons I'm reluctant to engage this issue too much more. 39 years doing this professionally which includes a career shooting thousands of rolls (and sheets) of film and I have no doubt that I can shoot film and a modern digital camera side by side in high contrast light and pull more out of the digital capture. So what -- just want the tech accurate.

At the same time if all I did was record the camera processed JPEG then the film would trounce it. There are so many complications and nuances to this that it get's unproductive real quick. That's why TPF prohibits these film versus digital threads.

Joe

 

[Ysarex88 82]

So the dynamic range of a very-top-end digital sensor is better than that of film. Does that hold true for entry-level or mid-range DSLRs? And I assume that this comparing the sensor against the film emulsion and size that has the best performance in terms of dynamic range (since not all films are created equal, as you know), yes? This is not an argument, it's a question.

The Nikon D800/800E/810 exceeds the dynamic range of film. Most other sensors in the past couple years either meet or exceed also. I say most, because some still aren't up to snuff...at least in my opinion. Aside from nostalgic value, DR was previously film's one claim to fame over digital, but those days are over.

Film is a horse drawn carriage. It's more about the ride and the "experience".

It doesn't beat medium format for dynamic range

Yes it does: Breakthrough: New Sensor from RED breaks the film Dynamic Range Barrier | Bright Side of News*

Quote from the article:

"The RED Dragon sensor needs to be directly compared to 65mm film.

The Dragon has more resolution than 65mm film when scanned at 4K.

The Dragon has more dynamic range than film… by a lot. 65mm film has about 14.5 stops. The Dragon has an easy 16 stops… without sweating."


Joe

 

[limr32 1]

At the same time if all I did was record the camera processed JPEG then the film would trounce it. There are so many complications and nuances to this that it get's unproductive real quick. That's why TPF prohibits these film versus digital threads.

Joe

I totally agree, which is why I am so bored with them unless I can actually learn something about those nuances. This is why I asked for your explanation and I appreciate that you were willing to give me one.

 

[Browncoat]

It doesn't beat medium format for dynamic range

And it doesn't beat the Sony A7

Do you have anything of actual value to contribute, or are you just going to continue being a keyboard warrior who regurgitates information gleaned from across the internet?

 

[Derrel]

The Sony A7 and A7r output 11-bit RAW images. You read that right: 11-bit RAW.

From Thom Hogan's review of the A7 and A7r, written after MONTHS of use: Sony A7 and A7r Review | Sans Mirror — mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan
"...let me lay out the basics: the D800E will shoot 14-bit raw files with no underlying artifacts and fully recoverable data. The A7r will shoot 11-bit raw files with potential posterization issues in the data. The same is true of the A7 versus a D610, too. "

"Let’s start with the 11-bit thing. Sony always uses compression in storing raw files. The way they do that is quite clever. They slice each pixel row into 32 pixel blocks. In a Bayer sensor, that means two colors, each with 16 data points). For each 16 pixels of a color, Sony looks at the minimum and maximum pixel values for each and stores that. For the other 14 pixels they store a 7-bit value that is offset from the minimum value. In essence, they get 32 pixel values stored in 32 bytes, when normally 11-bit storage for that data should take 44 bytes. This is not lossless compression. It is highly lossy. Nor is it visually lossless"

"Put simply, the D800E is producing 14-bit data values with no extra manipulation in them, the Sony is producing best case 11-bit data values, and many of those values have been calculated and are not the original data. "

 

[Ysarex88 82]

At the same time if all I did was record the camera processed JPEG then the film would trounce it. There are so many complications and nuances to this that it get's unproductive real quick. That's why TPF prohibits these film versus digital threads.

Joe

I totally agree, which is why I am so bored with them unless I can actually learn something about those nuances. This is why I asked for your explanation and I appreciate that you were willing to give me one.

OK, keep it balanced though and quote this sentence as well: "39 years doing this professionally which includes a career shooting thousands of rolls (and sheets) of film and I have no doubt that I can shoot film and a modern digital camera side by side in high contrast light and pull more out of the digital capture."

I know film. Before I retired I was the prof. who taught Zone System discipline to grad students. I had them bent over the densitometer graphing film tests. I'm not attacking film; enjoy shooting film it's a great experience. Just want to keep the tech accurate.

Joe

 

[Ysarex88 82]

The Sony A7 and A7r output 11-bit RAW images. You read that right: 11-bit RAW.

From Thom Hogan's review of the A7 and A7r, written after MONTHS of use: Sony A7 and A7r Review | Sans Mirror — mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan
"...let me lay out the basics: the D800E will shoot 14-bit raw files with no underlying artifacts and fully recoverable data. The A7r will shoot 11-bit raw files with potential posterization issues in the data. The same is true of the A7 versus a D610, too. "

"Let’s start with the 11-bit thing. Sony always uses compression in storing raw files. The way they do that is quite clever. They slice each pixel row into 32 pixel blocks. In a Bayer sensor, that means two colors, each with 16 data points). For each 16 pixels of a color, Sony looks at the minimum and maximum pixel values for each and stores that. For the other 14 pixels they store a 7-bit value that is offset from the minimum value. In essence, they get 32 pixel values stored in 32 bytes, when normally 11-bit storage for that data should take 44 bytes. This is not lossless compression. It is highly lossy. Nor is it visually lossless"

"Put simply, the D800E is producing 14-bit data values with no extra manipulation in them, the Sony is producing best case 11-bit data values, and many of those values have been calculated and are not the original data. "

No wonder Gary thinks film is better.

Joe

 

[Vince.1551]

Film has a nostalgia feel while some purist feels that digital images are too clinical. And no I don't think the 'film feel' can be easily replicated with pp. Even if you could, it's not worth the time. I do agree that if Leica cams tend to replicate the 'film feel' however it will never be the same as the original.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[limr32 1]

At the same time if all I did was record the camera processed JPEG then the film would trounce it. There are so many complications and nuances to this that it get's unproductive real quick. That's why TPF prohibits these film versus digital threads.

Joe

I totally agree, which is why I am so bored with them unless I can actually learn something about those nuances. This is why I asked for your explanation and I appreciate that you were willing to give me one.

OK, keep it balanced though and quote this sentence as well: "39 years doing this professionally which includes a career shooting thousands of rolls (and sheets) of film and I have no doubt that I can shoot film and a modern digital camera side by side in high contrast light and pull more out of the digital capture."

I know film. Before I retired I was the prof. who taught Zone System discipline to grad students. I had them bent over the densitometer graphing film tests. I'm not attacking film; enjoy shooting film it's a great experience. Just want to keep the tech accurate.

Joe

I don't understand - what was unbalanced? You know more about it and I learned something. What else was I supposed to say?

You said yourself that technically, digital does not always have the advantage over film in regards to dynamic range. It does in some cases and not in others. So yes, it's not entirely accurate anymore to say that film has better dynamic range. But - according to your explanation - it's also not entirely correct to say that digital has better dynamic range because it doesn't in all cases. And those cases are more likely to be encountered by people who are, for example, shooting with entry-level consumer digital cameras and shooting JPEG.

So, it's a complicated issue that has different answers. Neither blanket statement would be "keeping the tech accurate."

 

[timor]

Event of digital photography seems to be mostly about pixel count and performance of a sensor and image figuring algorithms. As much as for some folks it is an "artistically freeing" thing, I think, mostly, cause they couldn't "figure out" film and they need handicap of full computer. No question about it, no way digital technology may be inferior to organic film. Ha ! In ten years we will look at top performing cameras of today and laugh about their "flimsy" image quality "good for nothing". Yet digital brought a lot of limitations to creative nature of medium. Sensor is inflexible. To get all this pixels and DR it needs very precise exposure, no "over" or "under", stiff "developing" lol: love, when digitals are using this word) of the image. And that's good ! For most tasks of digital camera that's good, after all 99% of people using them know nothing about camera usage. In effect there is a limitation in creating the image "in field" in order to not to loose data.
Digital rendered everybody to only one format of camera; eye level slr. Essentially we lost everything else for this so called creative process. No more is possible to see the world through the lens of large format camera or TLR. Potential of this camera systems is no more available. That's another limitation, who knows, perhaps the greatest. Looks like today's photography is only about sharpness and detail. But then comes (from the other thread) Olivia Bee, a glorification of Lomography, elevated by big bucks. I am sure it is only an ephemeris, but symptomatic.

 

[Ysarex88 82]

You said yourself that technically, digital does not always have the advantage over film in regards to dynamic range.

Not quite. I acknowledged the existence of entry level digital cameras and that many people hobble digital technology in use (shoot JPEGs). Those are variations in usage. When you asked me to explain you made sure that I would compare digital with the best film can produce and I acknowledged that would be 70mm Tri-X Pro which is arguably the film DR king. If we re-do that comparison and substitute color slide film for Tri-X it's a different ball game. That's another usage variation. The usage variations get messy. Everybody shooting film doesn't shoot medium format Tri-X and everybody shooting digital isn't shooting raw with a camera equipped with a 14 bit A/D converter (16 bit A/D converters are showing up now). But technically when you compare the "king" of one with the "king" of the other digital delivers more DR than film -- that's the accurate tech.

You can't make the comparison and assume on the digital side a hobbyist shooting JPEGs with a Canon Rebel even though that might be a statistical mean. A disposable film camera from Walmart may also be a statistical mean.

Your original statement was an unqualified, "Film has better dynamic range than digital." Qualified at high performance levels for both and the reverse is true. In asking for accurate tech I'm qualifying at high performance levels as I think accurate tech means cutting out the usage variations.

I know the usage variations are real and they're important especially for the person doing the using. Therefore I want to acknowledge positive aspects of film. (I made a career out of film.) It's easier with a good color negative stock to hold subtle highlight detail in high contrast light given the curve characteristics on the film toe and a digital camera JPEG will do very poorly by comparison. I can see suggesting film as a solution there especially to someone who doesn't want to learn raw capture post processing. Film has a very positive characteristic in that case and even substantial statistical weight since a lot people shoot digital JPEGs and don't want to be so serious as to learn raw capture post processing. But that's a "usage" variation and not the accurate tech.

Joe

 

[Ysarex88 82]

Event of digital photography seems to be mostly about pixel count and performance of a sensor and image figuring algorithms. As much as for some folks it is an "artistically freeing" thing, I think, mostly, cause they couldn't "figure out" film and they need handicap of full computer. No question about it, no way digital technology may be inferior to organic film. Ha ! In ten years we will look at top performing cameras of today and laugh about their "flimsy" image quality "good for nothing". Yet digital brought a lot of limitations to creative nature of medium. Sensor is inflexible. To get all this pixels and DR it needs very precise exposure, no "over" or "under", stiff "developing" lol: love, when digitals are using this word) of the image. And that's good ! For most tasks of digital camera that's good, after all 99% of people using them know nothing about camera usage. In effect there is a limitation in creating the image "in field" in order to not to loose data.
Digital rendered everybody to only one format of camera; eye level slr. Essentially we lost everything else for this so called creative process. No more is possible to see the world through the lens of large format camera or TLR. Potential of this camera systems is no more available. That's another limitation, who knows, perhaps the greatest. Looks like today's photography is only about sharpness and detail. But then comes (from the other thread) Olivia Bee, a glorification of Lomography, elevated by big bucks. I am sure it is only an ephemeris, but symptomatic.

I use this camera a lot:

For me it's all about more viewfinder flexibility than than my old TLRs used to offer and the camera's superior ability to deliver an expansive tonal range beyond the old limits of film.

Joe

Edit: Damn! I swore I wouldn't get sucked in to this by the nonsense.

 

[limr32 1]

You said yourself that technically, digital does not always have the advantage over film in regards to dynamic range.

Not quite. I acknowledged the existence of entry level digital cameras and that many people hobble digital technology in use (shoot JPEGs). Those are variations in usage. When you asked me to explain you made sure that I would compare digital with the best film can produce and I acknowledged that would be 70mm Tri-X Pro which is arguably the film DR king. If we re-do that comparison and substitute color slide film for Tri-X it's a different ball game. That's another usage variation. The usage variations get messy. Everybody shooting film doesn't shoot medium format Tri-X and everybody shooting digital isn't shooting raw with a camera equipped with a 14 bit A/D converter (16 bit A/D converters are showing up now). But technically when you compare the "king" of one with the "king" of the other digital delivers more DR than film -- that's the accurate tech.

You can't make the comparison and assume on the digital side a hobbyist shooting JPEGs with a Canon Rebel even though that might be a statistical mean. A disposable film camera from Walmart may also be a statistical mean.

Your original statement was an unqualified, "Film has better dynamic range than digital." Qualified at high performance levels for both and the reverse is true. In asking for accurate tech I'm qualifying at high performance levels as I think accurate tech means cutting out the usage variations.

I know the usage variations are real and they're important especially for the person doing the using. Therefore I want to acknowledge positive aspects of film. (I made a career out of film.) It's easier with a good color negative stock to hold subtle highlight detail in high contrast light given the curve characteristics on the film toe and a digital camera JPEG will do very poorly by comparison. I can see suggesting film as a solution there especially to someone who doesn't want to learn raw capture post processing. Film has a very positive characteristic in that case and even substantial statistical weight since a lot people shoot digital JPEGs and don't want to be so serious as to learn raw capture post processing. But that's a "usage" variation and not the accurate tech.

Joe

I've already acknowledged that my original statement was overreaching because I did not know of the technical advancements at the high end. But it's not fair to ignore the usage variable because that is the variable that makes it ALSO unfair to make the opposite statement that digital has better dynamic range than film. You want to keep the tech accurate but the tech doesn't always exist in the high end world. I asked if you were comparing the high end sensors to high end film only because any other comparison would be unfair, NOT because I only wanted to know about the high end.

I'm not trying to argue that I was right. I'm also not attacking digital or your expertise. I'm saying that the most accurate description is "It depends."

What I'm also not trying to do is to suck you into some silly debate. What I AM trying to do is to understand why, after I recognized your point and accepted the information you gave me and then thanked you for it, you are still saying that I don't get it.

 

[timor]

I use this camera a lot:

For me it's all about superior ability to deliver an expansive tonal range beyond the old limits of film.

:shock: Having such a tool now you obligated, I guess... Good luck.

 

[gsgary]

I'm on the piwo again again