Several days ago, I posted the following link under the heading "400 megapixel camera" on another "photo" site that shall remain nameless.

http://www.thermojetstove.com/Tonality/

The posting initiated a lively discussion - some good observations and comments, and the usual brain dead vitriol from the digitrolls. That went on for just about 24 hours, then the web site shut down the thread!!! Now I'm sure that this has absolutely nothing to do with that site's corporate overlords wanting to suppress any attempts to counter the disinformation put out by their advertisers and shills.

It's impossible to have a film/digi thread ANYWHERE without risking flame wars, Godwin's law, divorce, dead babies, and cannibalism.

I know, I've tried to have an intelligent discussion once. I even stressed that the fact film may have more putative megapixels is not what really matters.

Nevertheless, after a few pages of decent discussion, a Stuka of pseudo-science fell upon the thread, and the cluster bomb of confused argument tore it apart.

Interesting article and hypothesis. Thanks for the post.

Several days ago, I posted the following link under the heading "400 megapixel camera" on another "photo" site that shall remain nameless.

http://www.thermojetstove.com/Tonality/

The posting initiated a lively discussion - some good observations and comments, and the usual brain dead vitriol from the digitrolls. That went on for just about 24 hours, then the web site shut down the thread!!! Now I'm sure that this has absolutely nothing to do with that site's corporate overlords wanting to suppress any attempts to counter the disinformation put out by their advertisers and shills.

From your article:

" The scans were done on a Plustek 7200i. This is an extremely high resolution film scanner, able to resolve up to 7200 dpi."

To put it politely, I ain't buying it or the Plustek for that matter!

Ok I agree with you about tonality but you didn't even mention what kind of DSLR you used for the comparsion? It almost seems like you just "simulated" what you think the picture would look like on a DSLR. This makes no sense to me. Your just asking to start a flame war posting an opinion like this and making it seem "scientific". It's not. If you want to do a test then get a DSLR and a film body take the picture with each body using the same lens for each.

The article is entirely correct. It does not add the errors induced by aliasing, nor does it describe the errors introduced by the software's attempts to fix all of the problems.

A friend of mine was slated to deliver an address at the ICIS conference here in 2006 on this same subject, but it was cancelled at the last minute for some reason.

PE

That's an interesting article. My observation is that no serious photographer or engineer has ever argued persuasively that digital technology is available at the retail level (I'm just allowing for the possibility that NASA or the Pentagon has something wonderful) which is superior to film for recording visual information. There are aspects of digital photography that are far superior in terms of work flow for many purposes and the results have been arguably good enough in those applications to allow people to embrace the benefits. But in terms of pure resolution and tonality digital is still all about making a case for how close it's come to catching up with film...not that it's as good or has surpassed it. Any "as good as" arguments must be qualified in terms of the requirements of the output medium for which the images are created.

I say this as someone that would not be without my digital gear for the purposes for which I use it.

Which DSLR/lens did you use? And also could you give us some scanning tips? I can't figure out a way to get 7200 dpi of pure information out of a $200-300 scanner without a hint of grain, noise or just pure garbage.

Much appreciated,
-A

Um, Tim, the Ektachrome you posted is, as posted, so fuzzy as to be a good argument for going digital. I mean, a digital shot with a cheap digicam couldn't possibly be worse and the next shot with the digicam will cost a lot less than the next frame of Ektachrome. Is that what you intended?

Before anyone jumps on me for touting digital in the temple of film righteousness, be reminded that not only do I shoot only film, and in several formats, I also don't scan my images or have them scanned. I'm purer than most of you.

Tim posted it on photo.net (http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PlPU) and the responses he got were the ones to be expected given the sketchyness and very doubtful nature of this "test." As here so far, he didn't respond to any questions and instead calls anyone who questions his "test" "digitrolls." Trolling can be done for film, too. I don't see why people feel the need to do it, instead of just using and enjoying their medium.

Some good observations guys. As several of you pointed out, it is impossible to have a rational discussion on this topic. We have all encountered people who must degenerate anything to the level of an argument, rather than have a dispassionate consideration of facts. Even here a simple, straightforward analysis that anyone can review with their own eyes elicits comments like "start a flame war", "troll" and "sketchyness (sic) and very doubtful nature of this "test." (sic)" (Perhaps Anupam can tell us why things he can see with his own eyes are sketchy and very doubtful?)

So guys, here's the question for you. From whence comes this mindset from the digital crowd? Are there other instances of complimentary technologies where adopters of the new method attacked and denigrated those who acknowledged the convenience of the new, but preferred the quality and utility of the old? Consumer level video tape has been around for 40 years, but 8mm and 16mm movie film are still alive and well due to the difference in the image quality. Do those who use electric shavers scream "luddite" when someone points out that blades shave closer and are faster? Did people trash their radios when they brought home their first television?

I've got my own theories on this, but would like to hear what observations you have made.

Tim, to turn your reasonable question on its head, why are the film types so defensive? Its seemed to me ever since digital came in -- do you remember the truly horrible but very timely digicam shots on the front pages of many newspapers? -- that there's been room for both.

I haven't yet been convinced that anything digital that I can afford matches film, which I can just afford, for image quality. I also haven't been convinced that image quality is everything.

(Perhaps Anupam can tell us why things he can see with his own eyes are sketchy and very doubtful?)

Sure I can tell you. I saw nothing with my own eyes - only files you have posted. For this test to have any credibility I want to know what DSLR and lens you used for the comparison - and I want the RAW file posted with details of RAW conversion. Simple enough.

Oh! BTW, I also don't believe that the Plustek, which is a very mediocre scanner from what several people I trust and respect have reported, can pull that much detail out of film with no trace of grain. I have some experience scanning slide and BW film with Nikon's dedicated film scanners (IV, V and 9000) and 100% crops from full resolution scans look very different. So, I'd need RAW scan files, software details and settings too before I believe this.

Like Dan said, why do film users have to be so defensive and claim magical advantages for their medium and slot anyone with opinions to the contrary as "digitrolls"? Oh! and like Dan, I am all film thus far.

Digital to film is apples to oranges.

Digital has millions of dollars of marketing behind it.

Factor those, and move on.