I thinks so too. But . . .
Wait, unless we were to know every step in the path with both processes it's an invalid comparison. There are ways to re-interpret and enhance an image regardless of the original source. In adition the RIP software used for those large images is extremely sophisticated, give it the right file you'll get the highest possible image quality.
So two different companies should have been involved, instead we have the prejudices of one.
I think it's more of a hybrid v. all-digital question. I am also tempted to suggest that this is really a perfect topic for hybridphoto.com too...
After the kind of film used, and the scanner employed, the big variable for me is the pre-press work. How much effort did they spend on either workflow to nail down their colours, retouch, etc.
In my opinion, once the film is scanned, I don't see why they should not apply sophisticated digital colour correction, grain reduction algorithms, etc, to achieve the best picture they can.
In this respect, I respect much more the stress test that Photo Engineer posted a while ago, comparing scanned film with a digital file. His conclusion was that you could push the scanned film much further than you could the digital camera image. It didn't say much about film v. digital, but at least it said something clear about scanned film v. digital.
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
Oh my... I'm relieved to see that the idiot speak of television hosts is not confined to the U.S.
The variables here make any conclusion silly. Even past that, it's a comparison of giant inkjet prints, files, scans, RIP's, workflow, and scanning technology. Try the same thing, but with an ikjet vs a cibachrome, and you'll see a completely different result. Apples and oranges anyway, but this is apples and mutant mars fruit. Should sell a crapload of junk for their sponsors though.
Every time I see a tv show where the presenters have to twitch their bodies
to pronounce words of more than two syllables, I get the "bull" alarm lights going full on...
One of the many, many reasons why I do not watch tv. Waste of time and space.
As others have noted: top digital camera, not even a mention of which film.
And of course: "the shoe has a green tinge" is "proof" that digital is better.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I can't say that I agree with the conclusion here. They used a top of the line proffessional digital camera, which is what most people would use for this kind of work, at the time this program was shot. Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm still new to analogue photography. But wouldn't 60mm film be thay way to go, for this kind of work? So it can't have been fair.
And as many of you has already stated, the inbetweens was not even touched. What you do with the photo between shooting and printing is just as important as taking the picture. The film will take a lot of damage in the process, if it's not done correctly. Scanning, converting, compressing etc.
I do think that this shows that for the regular user, digital is probably the way to go. But for proffessional use, it's still not clear. Digital can never get the same feel and depth, tho.
Originally Posted by Akki14
It's not that good.
For this type of work, I would probably have chosen MF, but they were "trying" to be even, so they used a common lens on "sensors" of the same size. Even so, most commercial photographers would shoot chrome film for something like this, and being in the studio, would have used a much slower film. The extrapolation in upsizing the digital image gives it a distinct advantage in the process used for comparison. They chose an ISO speed and post process that accentuated the film grain and hid the DSLR's noise. Had they used a slow chrome film, and given the film the benefit of digital machinations, and compared that things would have been different. Horses for courses. Only an idiot would draw any conclusion from this kind of thing. Film vs. digital comparisons are inherently stupid. When somebody starts comparing them, especially if they are spitting out numbers, you can be pretty sure you're talking to an novice or a poser, and that's who eats this dreck up.
Originally Posted by Jungell
There are just a few bits I don't like about the video. I felt a bit manipulated perhaps.
-What and who did the scanning? Did I miss this?
-Why did we not see the original film and why wasn't the scan discussed.
-Who pays these people?
-Why do I get so pissed off by this bullshit?
I think I said that but it was in the bicycles thread. I doubt that many people saw that. You posted that folding bicycles were being featured on that episode.
Originally Posted by Andy K