35mm SLR vs DSLR

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17556927
Now, we have Digital Cameras with better color reproduction, vastly more dynamic range, and stratospheric pixel density (36-50 million pixels)

I am afraid that good LCD projector (mind you the projector is the choke point here, good ones cost thousands) loaded with images from a 1Ds3 or Nikon D800, or even a 7D, will make an old 35mm slide look positively prehistoric..

CDS, I will take issue with the statement above. I submit that mere resolution is NOT the only criteria of 'better', so that while a dSLR image of 35-50MPixel might exceed the detail resolution of a 35mm slide, the dynamic range of the image presented by a projected 35mm slide exceeds what you can achieve today from any dSLR image. That is, we CANNOT show a large image using projected light (rather than a reflected light print) to any better than 4K resolution today, even with carloads of money!

• Barco FL35 only has 2,560 x 1,600 native resolution
  
• Christie D4K2560 projector has native 4K (4096 x 2160) resolution
  

• a Hasselblad slide projected onto a 10' square screen vs.
  
• a Hasselblad 60MPixel digital image projected onto a 10' square screen side by side at the full resolution of the digital image vs.
  
• a Canon 60MPixel digital image projected onto a 10' square screen side by side at the full resolution of the digital image!
  

I have a local shop will turn round my film next day it does for me
Hoof

Wilt wrote in post #17557693
CDS, I will take issue with the statement above. I submit that mere resolution is NOT the only criteria of 'better', so that while a dSLR image of 35-50MPixel might exceed the detail resolution of a 35mm slide, the dynamic range of the image presented by a projected 35mm slide exceeds what you can achieve today from any dSLR image. That is, we CANNOT show a large image using projected light (rather than a reflected light print) to any better than 4K resolution today, even with carloads of money!

• Barco FL35 only has 2,560 x 1,600 native resolution
  
• Christie D4K2560 projector has native 4K (4096 x 2160) resolution
  

Yes, the BEST projected digital image is 8.8 Mpixel, meaning that the capability of the photo acquired by even a 60 Mpixel sensor (like Hasselblad digital) is not capable of being shown at as high a dynamic range as can be achieved with projected light !

I will be the first to admit that digital achieves many things not readily possible with film.
But until digital projection can project the 50 MPixel images, there is no comparison for the large, projected film image vs. the large projected digital image.
I hope for the day that we can compare

• a Hasselblad slide projected onto a 10' square screen vs.
  
• a Hasselblad 60MPixel digital image projected onto a 10' square screen side by side at the full resolution of the digital image vs.
  
• a Canon 60MPixel digital image projected onto a 10' square screen side by side at the full resolution of the digital image!
  

It used to be that you could hear the gasps of wonderment at a projected medium format slide. The digital world is still missing out on even projecting a Canon 20D (8 Mpixel) image at full projected potential unless you have a Christie 4K!

I understand all that you say, I thought i had stipulated that projectors remain the bottle neck.

That said, I am curious, are you telling me that you feel a projected image from a 4K projector like the Christie or the Sony SXRD 4K would appear inferior in a side by side comparison with the 35mm slide as projected by an old school slide projector?

Again, I'd see the slide projector and it's 300 watt lamp as a bottleneck. Both media get hampered in different ways.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17557833
That said, I am curious, are you telling me that you feel a projected image from a 4K projector like the Christie or the Sony SXRD 4K would appear inferior in a side by side comparison with the 35mm slide as projected by an old school slide projector? .

Apples and Oranges....

Christie digital: lower res (8 Mpixels max) than film, brighter at 22k lumens
Sony SXRD: lower res (8 Mpixels max) than film, brighter at 2000 lumens
Slide projector: higher res (film grain/color clouds), dimmer at 1600 lumens (Kodak Ektapro with Extra Bright module)
Typical 2K consumer digital: 2 Mpixel, 1200-3000 lumens

Brightness difference translates to the size that can be projected with sufficient illumination for larger groups to view.
Resolution defines how close you can sit to the screen before you see LCD PIXELS of the image...you can see that today in the front 20% or so of movie theaters.
But how many of us have enjoyed slide projection in any groups larger than 25-30 photo enthusiasts?!

Jake & Wilt,

I am happily reading along on your film/digital discussion. I would find it interesting to know how much of each format both of you regularly shoot. Film/digital/apsc/full frame 35/MF? And also how large you regularly print/project/display. I guess I am asking, is this a real debate, or is this mostly an academic discussion. Does it matter to guys like me?

My perspective is as a hobbyist. My 'projecting' is limited to a 48" HDTV, which makes my 6D look really good. I print a ton of 4"x6", quite a few 5"x7" and the occasional 8"x10". My largest print hanging in the house is 11"x17" (T1i, 18-135) and it looks marvelous. I shoot, at most, 2 or 3 rolls of film a year. Most of that gets printed 4"x6" or 5"x7". My cats look quite imposing on that 48" TV!

Thanks,
GK

Let me start by stating that I'm seventy-six and old school for the most part. Back in the day we
had some fast film ASA 400 and that could be grainy at times. Anyone today who would take film
over digital should have his head examined. I happen to have a brand new Canon EOS 620 any
body interested?

RodS57 wrote in post #17556775
I've seen quite a few references to digital being better than 35mm film. Personally, outside of the convenience aspect, I am not convinced. For over 30 years I shot mostly with two cameras loaded with Kodachrome 64 and B/W plus-x, ASA 125. I usually viewed slides projected at an image size of five feet horizontal. Viewing distance was probably 10-15 feet.

Has anyone viewed these new digital shots projected at about the same size? How did they look? I haven't seen many projectors with really high resolution although it has been a while since I looked at them online. They have one at work that I may be able to access but I doubt it is more than 1024x768.

Just curious.

Rod

The current fad of increasing resolution in the video world has generated some interesting data. It's good you specified viewing distance
For a 60" wide let's call that a 75" diagonal. At a 12 foot viewing distance, this site says that most people will not be able to perceive the increased resolution going from 1080p (1920x1080 or 2MP) to 1440p (2560x1440 or 3.7MP). This site has a similar discussion and similar numbers - you'd need to sit at 5' from the 75" screen to get the most benefit from 4K TV (~4000x2000 or 8MP ish). These numbers relate to visual acuity and ability to resolve detail. In modern digital projectors, pixels each get illuminated by RG and B so they don't suffer from stripes and such. Once the pixel structure is no longer discernible, I don't think it matters a whole lot (although possibly some) whether the lost detail was originally digital or analog. For "analog" images projected at the same size, you'd still need to sit that close to assess whether you can see the benefit (I suspect you'd need very good vision. So yeah, if you look at 645 or 4x5 chromes closely on the wall they will have more total detail, but 35 mm slide can prolly be equaled by a good 4K projector, but you might begin to notice if you get your nose close to the screen...
(I have a 110" diag front projector and can begin to see the pixels (in a BluRay) from about 8 feet but I sit at~ 13')

Furlan wrote in post #17557974
Let me start by stating that I'm seventy-six and old school for the most part. Back in the day we
had some fast film ASA 400 and that could be grainy at times. Anyone today who would take film
over digital should have his head examined. I happen to have a brand new Canon EOS 620 any
body interested?

My wife would agree that I need my head examined. I shoot the occasional roll of film just for old-time's sake. I actually like the restrictions it imposes - once in a while, anyway.

I'd be interested in your 620, but I just picked up another Elan 7 last fall. It is still going fine, thank you.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17557966
Jake & Wilt,

I am happily reading along on your film/digital discussion. I would find it interesting to know how much of each format both of you regularly shoot. Film/digital/apsc/full frame 35/MF? And also how large you regularly print/project/display. I guess I am asking, is this a real debate, or is this mostly an academic discussion. Does it matter to guys like me?

I haven't shot film in a very long time.
(I've got an EOS 3 with some unopened Portra that is likely going stale)

When i did , I could not make prints as well as I can now with digital for a lot of reasons, for one, I was never "in the darkroom".

Full disclosure;
Slides was my father, (and grandfather for that matter) I never really got into slides myself.

For me it's always been framed prints.
I have some very nice 28" x 17" prints framed and hanging on walls, and more that I sold in galleries. these were mostly prints made from either the 1D3 files or the 1D2 files. I've printed larger with outsourced printing services. The largest prints i ever made with film were 8x10. None of this is scientific evidence. I admit that without the actual dark room I had no ability to know what the negatives were capable of.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17557995
I admit that without the actual dark room I had no ability to know what the negatives were capable of.. .

There is plenty of proof showing the capability of a negative. Ansel Adams comes to mind.

Frodge wrote in post #17558059
There is plenty of proof showing the capability of a negative. Ansel Adams comes to mind.

We have been discussing 35mm color film.
I would never debate digital vs. Large format silver.

Ansel Adams, like other great photographers such as Matthew Brady and Norman Rockwell, would be blown away by the quality of modern photographic equipment. Manufacturing and engineering progress makes everything Canon currently produces superior to anything these gentleman had access to. If anything, they give lie to the modern idea that better gear can make you a better photographer. They worked with what today would be considered crap, and produced excellent results. They are proof that photography is in your head, not in your gear. Ansel Adams' command of composition, lighting and mood made him a great photographer, not the fact that he had this 8x10 or that 35mm. The medium is most certainly not the message.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17558260
Ansel Adams, like other great photographers such as Matthew Brady and Norman Rockwell, would be blown away by the quality of modern photographic equipment. Manufacturing and engineering progress makes everything Canon currently produces superior to anything these gentleman had access to. If anything, they give lie to the modern idea that better gear can make you a better photographer. They worked with what today would be considered crap, and produced excellent results. They are proof that photography is in your head, not in your gear. Ansel Adams' command of composition, lighting and mood made him a great photographer, not the fact that he had this 8x10 or that 35mm. The medium is most certainly not the message.

very true! they would still be excited by the cameras to hand, maybe not the tech but the possibilitys that would be there

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17558260
Ansel Adams, like other great photographers such as Matthew Brady and Norman Rockwell, would be blown away by the quality of modern photographic equipment. Manufacturing and engineering progress makes everything Canon currently produces superior to anything these gentleman had access to. If anything, they give lie to the modern idea that better gear can make you a better photographer. They worked with what today would be considered crap, and produced excellent results. They are proof that photography is in your head, not in your gear. Ansel Adams' command of composition, lighting and mood made him a great photographer, not the fact that he had this 8x10 or that 35mm. The medium is most certainly not the message.

I wasn't talking about what ansel adams woul hae thought of modern equipment, or what he could have done with it. I want talking color vs b/w either. I was talking about the capability of a negative, and what you can do with that negative. It seems you have extrapolated from what I have originally said.

Frodge wrote in post #17558459
I wasn't talking about what ansel adams woul hae thought of modern equipment, or what he could have done with it. I want talking color vs b/w either. I was talking about the capability of a negative, and what you can do with that negative. It seems you have extrapolated from what I have originally said.

Well, then we agree. Ansel Adams was an unqualified photographic genius. He produced his art with the crap equipment of 60-70 years ago. IQ-wise: Today's films are better. Today's film cameras are better. Today's glass is better. Today's digital is better than all the film stuff from then or now. If he were working today, he'd be using digital, and his work would be better. The digital/film debate was the whole point of this thread.