35mm SLR vs DSLR

His darkroom techniques would be replaced by Post processing on a computer,. and I bet he would not be subscribing to Adobe products (sorry, i had to get that in there!)

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?

I started this thread and I haven't shot a roll of film in about 20 years. My love affair with photography goes back to my early teens although when it comes to artistic composition I am brain dead. About a year ago I hauled out my old projector for a quick try and it wouldn't work so I tossed it. It was purchased in the mid '70s. A friend gave me a projector from I would say the mid to late '60s. One day I decided to give it a try to see if it worked. That big bright image looked great. So much more alive than looking at a digital image on my 23" monitor. This thread is the result.

Realisticly, would I go back to film - I doubt it.

As everyone loves car anologies these days an automatic transmission is a better choice than a standard but God, I miss being the driver instead of being the passenger behind the wheel.

Rod

RodS57 wrote in post #17558599
...

As everyone loves car anologies these days an automatic transmission is a better choice than a standard but God, I miss being the driver instead of being the passenger behind the wheel.

Rod

My Tacoma pickup has a five speed manual,. it drives like a sports car to me
And once again technology marches on. when I was learning to drive, one bought a standard if they wanted the est performance and fuel economy. Automatics had no more than 3 gears, and thus were far from efficient. they handled the massive power of big block V-8 more confidently and with chance of catastrophic mistake, but they were not efficicetn. On a four cylinder "rice burner" automatics robbed you of power.

this is all ancient history now as the Automatic trans has come so far they are more efficient than standards. They may be equipped with anywhere up to 8 gears, or in some cases "infinitely variable"

But yes, I get it! I can't imagine driving a little Saab 900 (for instance) and NOT having the manual transmission.

I'd love to be able to shoot film AND digital.
The visual impact of a projected 6X7 chrome is breathtaking although getting the screen out and aligning the projector was always a bit of a nause.
The problem with film is the availability of materials theses days and the eco loons that say it'll destroy the environment.

AJSJones wrote in post #17557975
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')

The first few responses to my query implied this question was long dead and should remain dead. After that the posts got quite interesting. Lots of information. So far it appears no one has been able to do a reasonable side by side comparison of projected film slides and digital images. After reading your post I tried plugging a flash drive directly into my 1080p 42" TV but I couldn't view the images. I could see thumb nail images but not full screen. I guess the software in the TV couldn't scale the files to fit the screen.


Rod

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?

Like CDS, it has been a while since I shot film in any quantity. Part of the issue is the fairly rapid demise of my favorite film emulsions. Part of the issue is the disappearance of local color processing labs, forcing mail order processing. Part of it is the inability to obtain paper or chemistry for my favorite means of doing my own darkroom printing from color slides for exhibit...gone is Cibachrome/Ilfochrome. So, yes, it is a bit of an academic discussion.

So what's the point? Well...

1. I have seen the emotional impact of the projected medium format image on an audience, to appreciate the potential seen in film.
   
2. And I have routinely and without hesitation printed 20x24" prints from medium format Velvia on Ilfochrome paper, although I would be reluctant to exceed 16"x24" from 135 B&W film.
   
3. But I have never seen my 8 Mpixel digital images at their full potential when projected, much less a 25 MPixel image! And how often do ANY of us make large enough prints to worry about >20"x30" quality?! So just why is there any 'need' in digital, when few even make 13"x19" prints?! Would be show off images more frequently to friends and family, if we could PROJECT even a 12MPixel image at fill resolution at 5' x 7.5'?!
   

RodS57 wrote in post #17558617
The first few responses to my query implied this question was long dead and should remain dead. After that the posts got quite interesting. Lots of information. So far it appears no one has been able to do a reasonable side by side comparison of projected film slides and digital images. After reading your post I tried plugging a flash drive directly into my 1080p 42" TV but I couldn't view the images. I could see thumb nail images but not full screen. I guess the software in the TV couldn't scale the files to fit the screen.

Rod

It's not dead, just not financially viable to most.
In MY personal opinion, projected chromes are visually more appealing than prints or large LCD screens.

As for ancient history and this post should probably be in a new thread.

I wonder where we are headed. Home burned cd and dvd disks have a life expendancy of less than 10 years. I've had hard drives used as backup data storage die. I have glass lantern slides here that were done in 1895. Film, how long can it last if properly stored. We know various forms of paper can survive for thousands of years.

One hundred years from now will the digital pictures you take today still exist? Or will it be "file type not supported". Makes one wonder. Beta vcr anyone?

Rod

RodS57 wrote in post #17558652
As for ancient history and this post should probably be in a new thread.

I wonder where we are headed. Home burned cd and dvd disks have a life expendancy of less than 10 years. I've had hard drives used as backup data storage die. I have glass lantern slides here that were done in 1895. Film, how long can it last if properly stored. We know various forms of paper can survive for thousands of years.

One hundred years from now will the digital pictures you take today still exist? Or will it be "file type not supported". Makes one wonder. Beta vcr anyone?

Rod

Sadly my friend, I went round this loop 20 years ago.
The best thing about chromes is, if the sun rises you can view them. If the sun does not rise, then we're all in trouble anyway.

I've recently started printing out lots of pics from my digital camera. My plan is to make it a habit.

If any of you old timer filmheads has a good source for archival glassine envelopes, please let me know.

As a side note. I really miss my Blad 501C. It was camera porn to me, fantastic mechanical/optical engineering.

While Ansel Adams' name has been invoked in this thread, it should be noted that some, if not all of Adams' best -known landscape images were created not with a 35mm camera, but with large format and medium format cameras. Ironic that Adams would be mentioned in a thread dealing with a film format that he did not use for many of his major works.

Also, it's useful to note that one of the first definitive 35mm-film-versus DSLR comparisons was made six years ago, by Michael Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape web site,who judged that images from a now obsolete Canon D30 were superior to scanned frames of Provia 100 F slide film. Of course, Reichmann's observations only started a never-ending argument.

DC Fan wrote in post #17558732
...

Also, it's useful to note that one of the first definitive 35mm-film-versus DSLR comparisons was made six years ago, by Michael Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape web site,who judged that images from a now obsolete Canon D30 were superior to scanned frames of Provia 100 F slide film. Of course, Reichmann's observations only started a never-ending argument.

Read those dates again, the discussion was originally posted in 2000, with followups in 2001.
Thus the use of circa 2000 DSLRs.

None of that discussion covers projection however.

DC Fan wrote in post #17558732
While Ansel Adams' name has been invoked in this thread, it should be noted that some, if not all of Adams' best -known landscape images were created not with a 35mm camera, but with large format and medium format cameras. Ironic that Adams would be mentioned in a thread dealing with a film format that he did not use for many of his major works.

Also, it's useful to note that one of the first definitive 35mm-film-versus DSLR comparisons was made six years ago, by Michael Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape web site,who judged that images from a now obsolete Canon D30 were superior to scanned frames of Provia 100 F slide film. Of course, Reichmann's observations only started a never-ending argument.

I think the equipment used is quite relevant to the discussion at hand. IIRC, AA used a variety of cameras, from 35mm (which he considered 'miniature', to 8"x10" plate cameras. I am making a HUGE leap here, but allow me to assume he went to the trouble of lugging an 8x10 around because it offered superior IQ in his final images. And there-in lies the rub; a t5i and 18-55 STM would yield better results than were possible with even the best 8x10 camera of 70 years ago. Add raw processing, combined multiple shots and all the other magic of modern digital photography and processing, and I will put my 60D up against the best 8x10 camera produced while AA was shooting. Well, my equipment may be leagues better than his, but I am still stuck with about 0.0001% of his talent and vision.

I don't shoot film because it is different or better. I shoot film because I like to shoot film now and again.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17558609
this is all ancient history now as the Automatic trans has come so far they are more efficient than standards. They may be equipped with anywhere up to 8 gears, or in some cases "infinitely variable"

I can assure you that you really don't want to drive one of them either. Worst car I ever drove was a Fiat Brava with a CVT transmission. I currently have a Nissan Qashqai, and was planning on replacing it at the end of the year with another one, but with the auto box, I struggle with the clutch now with my disabilities. They have now changed it from the 2.0L Diesel with proper Auto to a 1.2L Petrol with CVT box. Looks like it will have to be a Mitsubishi ASX4 now.

Alan