Digital is better ?

[SmartWombat]

NikionD700 at ISO 400 vs F5 with ISO400 film, same 85mm lens.

http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3

Why use 400 ISO ?
No mention of what film they used.
No mention of how the film was scanned.
No mention of any post-processing on digital or film scan.

Impressive to see a 17m high print from 35mm and digital together.
But was it a fair test?

[brmill26]

Interesting, for sure. Fair? Well, I guess it depends what you're testing. If you're a pro who shoots 50 foot tall photos, they've fairly conclusively proven that digital is far superior to 35mm film, as earth shattering a conclusion as that is. One would presume they didn't skimp on the film or scanning, seeing everything else they used (the cost of that printer/print?! YIKES!). But, that is an assumption nonetheless.

But back to being fair, I'd say no way. None of us will ever print at anything even approaching that size. The largest most people will ever print is about 20x30 - and very rarely at that. So that size would be a much more realistic comparison in terms of resolution, detail, and grain. Color is going to vary wildly by film, and I guess grain would as well... which is probably why they chose ISO400, b/c modern FF digital has almost 0 noise at that ISO, whereas film grain is certainly noticeable. Thus, when blown up to preposterous sizes, the differences would be blatantly obvious, easily proving their point.

If their point is merely that digital has surpassed film in terms of technical ability, I think they've merely confirmed what's already very well known. But the reason some of us still use film (speaking about myself, anyway), is because of the "look" and "feel" it gives that digital cannot reproduce. Subjective, yes, but there still is a notable difference to a discerning eye.

And it also bears saying that they really didn't show much anyway. You'd have to be crazy to use 35mm film for a print that large. That's why medium format (and large format) film is still around is because the larger negative is needed for larger print sizes. People have known that for going on 100 years now...

Interesting, yes. But pretty useless.

[photophorous]

I suspect it was about as fair as it could be. Its just an apples and oranges comparison. The grain issue, the color cast, the lack of detail in the blacks, and the overall color depend greatly on post-processing, film type, and scanning. Even assuming that was all done on a professional level there is a lot of interpretation; it could come out a lot of different ways.

I'm not surprised that there was a clear winner at 400 ISO, though. I'd like to see this same test redone with Fuji Astia 100F slide film. The D700 would probably be almost exactly the same, but I think the film would be significantly improved. There's a big difference between 100 and 400 ISO with 35mm film.

Then try shooting some landscapes on Velvia 50 with a Zeiss 21mm Distagon ZF...that would be an interesting comparison.

Paul

[J_Ducote]

I'm gonna cry foul. If you were going to use a 35mm to shoot a billboard sized picture you most certainly would not be using 400 ISO. 100 or slower fore sure.

[Xia_Ke]

...The grain issue, the color cast, the lack of detail in the blacks, and the overall color depend greatly on post-processing, film type, and scanning. Even assuming that was all done on a professional level there is a lot of interpretation; it could come out a lot of different ways...

I'm with you, I'm wondering what sort of post processing was done with these. What was used for a scanner? Were the digital images shot RAW, JPEG, etc? There's no question that ISO400 in today's current digital cameras would beat ISO400 35mm film for finer grain. If anyone is going to do a comparison, personally I would like to see a film shot, printed, traditionally, compared to an unprocessed (except maybe a slight color balance) digital print, say for a 16x20 print.

Honestly though, none of these comparisons matter as far as I'm concerned. I like shooting film in large part just because of the process involved. They really need to stop with these comparisons because, neither is "better" than the other. All depends on the photographer and how they want to capture/present their work. Now if you'll excuse me, time to go load some reels :thumbsup:

Whichever you choose, happy shooting,
Aaron

[Kajuah]

Technically.. 400 ASA is not 400 ISO
It depends on the film, fuji 400 wouldn't yield the same results necessarily as kodak gold

And then there's BW .. and then there is the processing method, and then there is the issue of calibrating printer to computer to camera.

I say this test flunks, I say the film vs digital debate is silly, too, because it's a different piece of technology all together despite most of the mechanics are still the same.

I agree with AAron - either or is up to you for what you think suits your needs.

[drg]

This is by far, a test of the printing method more than film or digital.

To get that big an image, whatever the intermediate methods involved there's a RIP engine (Raster Image Processor) somewhere in the mix. The imager software and the output method will overcome a lot of problems in both original formats. If you have the opportunity, look at a billboard, traditional or the new plastic print media, up close or before being mounted. At less than several feet, it is all unrecognizable other than color and elements of the shape. Better yet, look at a display on the side of a Semi-trailer. The Marine Corps has one that is one of my favorites. Very well done, but at less than about ten feet it is very blurry. At twenty five it is a different image! There are some optical and printing techniques that use certain perspective illusions to make it look better farther away.

The amount of image manipulation of the film or digital original is next to impossible to evaluate without actual 'prints' in hand and then it is, at best, only a very educated guess. As a result I believe it has little or nothing ultimately to do with the DvF discussion which really was 'solved' a long time ago. Well, a long time ago in techno-speed time.