5 ms·
Which areas is film superior to the modern sensors?
by rimantas 10y ago
Which areas is film superior to the modern sensors?
- datenwolf 10y ago- higher resolution (with fine grain sized stock) - higher dynamic range - gracefull saturation behavior and IMHO the absolute killer feature: - a "fresh" sensor for each and every frame captured (no worries about scratches in the optical lowpass coating, no hassle with dust on the sensor). Also absolutely no dependency on charged batteries if one uses a purely mechanical camera.
- mizaru 10y agoThe Sony A6300 offers 13.7 stops of dynamic range (according to DxOMark, so not entirely uncontroversial). The slightly more expensive Nikon D810 goes up to 14.8 stops. It's hard to find definitive numbers for film, though.
- bicubic 10y ago35mm film is considered to be roughly equivalent to 20 megapixels. A modern digital camera has 42, more than double that. 35mm film is considered to have a dynamic range around 13 stops. A modern digital camera will do about 13.9 Film has a few advantages and pleasant quirks over digital, but sensitivity and resolution aren't amongst them.
- datenwolf 10y ago> but sensitivity and resolution aren't amongst them. Digital cameras have been more sensitive than chemical film for some time now, hence I didn't mention sensitivity (film is clearly inferior). Regarding dynamic range and resolution, it really depends on what kinds of stock you compare to digital. If you take a low sensitivity ISO 50 fine grain stock, that one will easily outperform current generation electronic sensors – except for low-ish resolution high dynamic range sensors with large charge collecting capabilities¹. But you get this at the expense of having to use slow shutter speeds or a fast aperture. You're right that in the "usual" ballpark of operational parameters (ISO 400 to ISO 2000, ~30MP resolution) modern electronic image sensors are getting close or are on-par with standard application chemical film stock. ---- 1: Ironically chemical film stock resolution and dynamic range increase "in the same direction": Smaller grain → higher DR, higher resolution, but lower sensitivity. It's exactly opposite for electronic sensors since pixel size determines charge collection capacity and therefore saturation levels.
- ekianjo 10y agoif you enlarge a film the traditional way for printing it goes way beyond 20M pixels. Probably closer to 50M pixela at least. Try enlarging a current 20M pixels digital picture to A2 format you will see a huge difference and film clearly wins.
- bicubic 10y agoI based my numbers on http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/30745/what-is-the-equivalent-resolution-of-a-35mm-film http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/30745/what-is-the-e... Their breakdown is based around top of the line equipment. If you think 50mp can be pulled from film, I'd like to see how.
- bbrik 10y agoI work with post production for tv/movies. Current digital sensors are much better than film in clarity, noise, dynamic range, etc. Film is still, arguably, superior in look.
- emodendroket 10y agoWhat makes it "superior in look" though?
- acveilleux 10y agoIf I was to hazard a guess, minute irregularities of film blending the details instead of forcing them into a discrete grid.
- bleair 10y agoThe noise inherent to film. Aka film grain is more irregular than digital sensor noise and can be more pleasing to people. People have argued that part of this is familiarity. People who grew up watching film have a large base of memories and associations with their favorite movies and the 'film look' IN vfx work we use a large library of film-stock grain patterns to add noise to cg elements.
- Kubuxu 10y agoYou can take that 15 year old photo, scan it and upscale it to meter width and keep sharp edges and so on. Try doing this with that fancy iPhone picture.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mortenjorck 10y agoNot really an apples-to-apples comparison. An early-2000s consumer film camera, addressing roughly the same market as a modern iPhone camera, is not going to have nearly the lens quality, nor will the mass-market film stock have the grain resolution, nor will the 1-hour photo print have the transfer sharpness to survive a scan enlargement to a 1-meter-wide print. The result will look grainy and blurry compared to an enlargement from a recent iPhone. An early-2000s 35mm SLR with professional film and a high-end darkroom print will look great enlarged, but then an iPhone is no longer an appropriate point of comparison.
- ekianjo 10y agoearly 2000 slr cost close to nothing these days though.
- ekianjo 10y agoLarge and medium format completely blow the best digital sensors out there. Dynamic range (unless you have a 3000 USD DSLR), contrast in black and white... and the rendering of colors. With a DLSR you are stuck with one sensor, with film every new roll is a different experience. And as long as you have the negs, you can keep your pictures almost forever. Try reading that fancy RAW, proprietary format from your 2010's camera in 2050.
- dwringer 10y agoTechnically that's a limitation of the price point, though. There is no physical reason medium- and large-format DSLR's couldn't be made with higher resolution and sensitivity than film.
- chongli 10y agoPrice is a big deal though. You can buy a 4x5 camera and some sheet film for a few hundred bucks online and get started making some amazing photographs right now. To buy a medium format digital back with comparable resolution you're looking at prices rivalling an entry level luxury car.
- ekianjo 10y agonot even close to MF cameras cost 9000 usd currently. Large sensors are prohibitive. If you do landscape photography Film is still the king.