Is Film better than Digital

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

Interesting test. Talk about pixel peepers.

who cares, where can i get a printer like that too sit on my cofee table?

WHO CARES!

its nikon and that guy creeps me out.

Suzy got her catsuit on and my mind wandered.

I wondered why they chose ISO 400, though. 100 might have given the film a better chance. The viewing distances were a bit harsh as well - prints that size should be seen from, what? a mile maybe?!

ISO 400 is pretty standard in the professional studio arena.

+1 on the catsuit

Good comparison, not surprised at the outcome.

That was interesting, but if the images have to be printed at that size to see much of a difference, I think it can be assumed that they're fairly equal. Either way, there's not room for film in my bag.

WOW! that is the mother of ALL printers...!!! I wonder how $$$ it cost for this test.

Interesting, but kind of a pointless comparison since the negatives were scanned in order to print on that particular machine. If anything the test just tells us that the D700 produces better results than their negative scanner.

that's the biggest printer ever. but then again i cannot disagree w/ you bob_a

too many variables to be a real good test... What film. What scanner... Then printing that big? How about a nice 8x12 or 10x15?

I'm honestly waiting for my 5Dii to get here then I want to do something similar... I have working 645 and 35mm film cameras, so it'll be fun with both formats and 2 digital formats. Not sure if I'll get a traditional wet print or scan the negs yet, but yeah, I'm curious enough to do the legwork.

silvex wrote in post #6735578
WOW! that is the mother of ALL printers...!!! I wonder how $$$ it cost for this test.

not much considering it's "advertising".

Cool video, thanks.

folville wrote in post #6735507
That was interesting, but if the images have to be printed at that size to see much of a difference, I think it can be assumed that they're fairly equal. Either way, there's not room for film in my bag.

folville, I'm with you. This is interesting. I personally thought that film was going to win. Since there was the lack of tonality. But when the digital won, I thought gee it must be the scanner. But I didn't here anything about the scanner. So I'll never know. But it will be interesting as time goes on.

scanners are cameras though, so they've improved alongside DSLRs....

davidfig wrote in post #6736003
folville, I'm with you. This is interesting. I personally thought that film was going to win. Since there was the lack of tonality. But when the digital won, I thought gee it must be the scanner. But I didn't here anything about the scanner. So I'll never know. But it will be interesting as time goes on.

I would assume the scans were very high quality, but it's just a variable that casts some shadow of doubt on this comparison, no matter how good the scanner technology was.

I honestly don't know if it's really "worth knowing" at this point for most. The convenience factor is simply too overwhelming. Perhaps some fashion photogs will disagree, but for me, it's no contest.

I think I read somewhere that 35mm film is kind of equivalent to 20MPs in terms of how much detail it can hold and how large you can blow up a photo without substantial detail loss.