# really big prints from 35mm film and digital



## ksmattfish (Dec 14, 2008)

Here's a video comparing 17+ meter tall (that's right *meters*) prints shot with a Nikon F5 and a Nikon D700.

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


----------



## PatrickHMS (Dec 15, 2008)

Interesting,

The results of that sure go against what most people think and say
about an enlargement of "same" photo taken as a film image vs. a 
digital image.

Wonder if it is an honest straight-up comparison of the two, or if either
image had any funny business we don't know about done to it...


----------



## Garbz (Dec 15, 2008)

What funny business? We are talking about the be all and ends all of comparisons. Which format can we squeeze the utter most performance out of. Sending the image to JPL Labs to get the NASA gurus to do the enlargement would still be a fair comparison providing it did start with the original RAW files from the camera.

What would you consider funny business?


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 15, 2008)

It's simple enough to do your own comparison if you think they were up to something.  I can see enough of a difference between 8mp APS and 35mm film in 12"x18" prints to convince me.  It might surprise some to learn that once upon a time I was a die-hard, digital hating, film geek (see my first several thousand TPF posts).


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 15, 2008)

I think nearly everyone who was serious about photography hated digital in the early days.  Nothing abnormal about that. 

What a fascinating video Matt.  I was pretty sure this new batch of full frame cameras had to be close to film quality by now, but I had no idea they were equal and better.  My old film professor is going to be pissed.  He was the most intense luddite I ever met.


----------



## PatrickHMS (Dec 15, 2008)

Garbz said:


> What funny business? We are talking about the be all and ends all of comparisons. Which format can we squeeze the utter most performance out of. Sending the image to JPL Labs to get the NASA gurus to do the enlargement would still be a fair comparison providing it did start with the original RAW files from the camera.
> 
> What would you consider funny business?


 
I never said that there was any, just leaving room if there had been somewhere along the line.  Definitely hping that it was an honest comparison, if people are always honest.

Guess I learned a long time ago that all is not always as it appears to be.

The end results surprised me enough that I just wondered if someone else on here might claim foul about something that happened that we did not see.


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 16, 2008)

PatrickHMS said:


> Definitely hoping that it was an honest comparison...



I got the impression that the folks who initiated the test know enough about photography, or have a stake in one side or the other.  I would assume the printers would use the demonstration for publicity, and would want to demonstrate that they can do a good job for both film and digital photographers; business is business and they want to sell to everybody.  

In my opinion there was a little funny business, but I don't know if it was intentional.  Film would've had a better chance had they used ISO 100 or 50.  I see a big difference between ISO 100 and 400 film in my own work, but I usually can't see much difference between ISO 100 and 400 from my DSLRs.  

Beyond the film vs. digital aspect I think the video is interesting because of the massive size prints.  People on the internet regularly claim that the max print size for either 35mm film or digital is less than a meter by a meter.  Long before I went digital my own personal opinion was that 35mm film was for 8x12 or smaller.  Obviously either can go up to billboard size quite nicely.


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 16, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> I was pretty sure this new batch of full frame cameras had to be close to film quality by now...



I slowly brought APS digital into my work at weddings replacing 35mm for details, action shots, and candids, but I still used medium format film (Fuji NPH 400) for the formal portraits.  The end of film for me began when I noticed how well the 8x12 photos from the 20D compared to the 8x10 photos from my Hasselblad.  Later that summer I sold a dozen 16"x20" and larger landscape photographs to Cisco Systems.  Some of the prints were from 4x5in, some from 6x7cm, and some from the 20D.  I remember telling the client that I was unsure the 20D shots could be enlarged that much, but I'd try.  I was stunned, shocked, and down right freaked out when I saw my hand printed, silver gelatin prints from 6x7 Tmax 100 next to ink jet prints from my 8mp 20D.  That was the final straw; the next day both my Hassy 500c/m and Pentax 67II were for sale.  As soon as one sold I bought a 5D, and I've got no regrets.


----------



## panocho (Dec 16, 2008)

ksmattfish said:


> In my opinion there was a little funny business, but I don't know if it was intentional.  Film would've had a better chance had they used ISO 100 or 50.  I see a big difference between ISO 100 and 400 film in my own work, but I usually can't see much difference between ISO 100 and 400 from my DSLRs.



I agree with that and definitely suspect the whole thing is intentionally biased towards digital. Or more than suspect, I would say it's obvious. So the question does remain...

...or not; as you please. I mean, it doesn't bother me at all the claim that  digital is better, or whatever you like. As a matter of fact, I myself shoot digital (not because I think it's better, though; far from that). I'm just saying the whole thing sounds like new-technologies propaganda to me -regardless of a fair comparison, if there is such thing.


----------



## ekool (Dec 16, 2008)

Well, I can't really comment on the test results... but I can comment that the dude hosting the show scares me.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 16, 2008)

> but I can comment that the dude hosting the show scares me.


That was my very first thought when I watched it, too   That guy fell off the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.  And then a badger ripped up his face.

Seriously, though, that was poorly thought out (or maybe it wasn't, read on...), unscientific and done purely for ratings and advertising (how much did Nikon pay for the D700 to win?).

The biggest flaw is obviously ISO 400.  Why?  (yes, that's rhetorical, Nikon probably paid them to do that).

Everyone knows that ISO 400 is about the threshold for acceptable quality and grain in film.  But even on the D40, ISO 400 looks great.  No doubt, it looks phenomenal on the D700.  OK, we know that ISO 400 is better on a digital than on film.  Get over it, move on, you don't need to test that.

And who uses ISO 400 in a studio where they have all the lighting equipment in the world at their disposal?

Take this video with a mountain of sodium chloride.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 17, 2008)

While I agree that picking iso400 seems to have been purposely done to give the D700 an advantage, my response to that is: so what?  Their test is not invalidated by that at all.  So they should stick to iso 100 because film can't cleanly go to 400? Well that's an important detail that you can't brush aside.

Here's an awful metaphor to illustrate the point:
Two guys want to race a classic 70's muscle car with a modern equivalent muscle car around a track to see which gets around the track faster.  The day of the race comes and it's pouring rain. The guy in the 70's car says "No way I'm racing in this" while the guy in the new muscle car, with it's computer traction control, antilock brakes and advanced limited slip differential has no fear of racing in those conditions.

Indeed, if all other variables were equal, the newer car would be much easier to control and would certainly win the race in these difficult driving conditions.  

So the only way the classic car could win would be on a sunny dry day.  Isn't this an important and telling detail?  Obviously the new car is the better performer.


----------



## panocho (Dec 17, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> Here's an awful metaphor to illustrate the point:



I disagree here. To use your metaphor, I would rather put it this way:

OK, let's race the cars, but ONLY if it rains. Otherwise I could not take advantage of the one thing that I know for sure will make me win the competition.

Again, my point is not to support film against digital. But this comparison is definitely a piece of advertisement of the new digital full frame camera. Only that I can see. And as epp_b points, who in the world would choose ISO 400 for those studio photos?!


----------



## Steph (Dec 17, 2008)

How relevant is this test anyway? I watched the video at work (no sound) and I could not see any differences. Without the commentary I cannot tell which one was the winner!! And I guess I wouldn't be able to tell either by standing a few meters away from both prints. To me, both media can achieve very large prints; that's the only thing I get from the comparison. And who prints 17 meter tall prints anyway?


----------



## epp_b (Dec 17, 2008)

> While I agree that picking iso400 seems to have been purposely done to give the D700 an advantage, my response to that is: so what? Their test is not invalidated by that at all. So they should stick to iso 100 because film can't cleanly go to 400?


Yes, because they are not claiming testing digital vs. film in the highest speed capability.  They're claiming to test digital vs. film in the highest blow-up capability.  They should be taking the ideal speed for each medium, not just matching them up because digital sheep think that equivalent numbers must mean the same thing.

ISO 200 on the D700 and ISO 50 on film would have been a much more accurate comparison.

And, you're right, that car thing was an awful metaphor and nowhere near accurate.  A better comparison might have been a RWD car in the dry vs. an AWD in the wet.


----------



## MikeBcos (Dec 17, 2008)

One thing I didn't notice mentioned in the film was scanning, the way the 35mm negative was scanned will have a huge impact on the quality of image you get from it, the experience and skill of the scanner operator would also make a big difference.

The test was interesting but I would doubt the findings until I knew more about the scanning.

Either way though, I don't really care, digital is great, I love film, I don't care which is "better", they are both great for what I want.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 17, 2008)

epp_b said:


> ISO 200 on the D700 and ISO 50 on film would have been a much more accurate comparison.


It would have been a more accurate comparison because that is at each medium's forte, sure. I get that. But being able to shoot at iso400 and having it look at good as iso50 automatically makes the D700 the winner.  Remember, studio work isn't the only use for these cameras. In the real world, having a cleaner high iso means you get the shots. It's makes every other aspect of shooting easier. End of story.  So like I said, it doesn't matter that they used iso400 when you and I know they should have used 100 for in the studio, think of the practical applications of this in the real world.


epp_b said:


> ... digital sheep ....


Don't do that.  Just don't.  Let's keep it clean and free of embarrassing name-calling.:thumbup:


----------



## epp_b (Dec 17, 2008)

> It would have been a more accurate comparison because that is at each medium's forte, sure. I get that. But being able to shoot at iso400 and having it look at good as iso50 automatically makes the D700 the winner. Remember, studio work isn't the only use for these cameras. In the real world, having a cleaner high iso means you get the shots. It's makes every other aspect of shooting easier. End of story. So like I said, it doesn't matter that they used iso400 when you and I know they should have used 100 for in the studio, think of the practical applications of this in the real world.


Who shoots somewhere other than a studio when they're printing a billboard?


----------



## panocho (Dec 17, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> It would have been a more accurate comparison because that is at each medium's forte, sure. I get that. But being able to shoot at iso400 and having it look at good as iso50 automatically makes the D700 the winner.  Remember, studio work isn't the only use for these cameras. In the real world, having a cleaner high iso means you get the shots. It's makes every other aspect of shooting easier. End of story.



Still don't agree. By the same token, one could argue that a large format camera is completely useless, because in the real world you're not likely to be carrying such a monster when you can easily have a handy pocket camera that gets you the shot. As with the race-metaphor, I think that such kind of argument is tailor-made for the digital to make it look a winner, and not considering seriously a fair comparison (if there is one... although definitely there is no need for one!!).

That being said, I think that the "propaganda" video, which is what see there, is completely unnecesary. I mean, does anybody sense film cameras as a threaten to digital??!! 



Dubious Drewski said:


> Don't do that.  Just don't.  Let's keep it clean and free of embarrassing name-calling.:thumbup:



:thumbup:


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 17, 2008)

epp_b said:


> Who shoots somewhere other than a studio when they're printing a billboard?


And why is that?  Think of the door this type of power opens.  People usually don't shoot billboards in any setting other than a studio because it's easiest to achieve the quality and detail required there.  But what if your camera is powerful and accurate enough for you to be able to achieve this level of control and detail in any setting, not just in the studio. That's a really big benefit.

Don't you understand the implications of this?

What if, in say ten years, your top-end camera can be bumped up to iso 25,600 or higher, you are able to shoot action at 1/4000th indoors with natural light and an optimal aperture of f8 or even f16. And imagine that the resulting photo had the clarity and accuracy to be printed on a 17 meter billboard.  The same clarity and accuracy that had only been achievable in the past with iso50 film in a tightly controlled studio.  This ability is not far off from what we can do now with modern full frame DSLRs. And it's not unreasonable to expect this type of power within the next ten years.

Can you seriously not see how this is a benefit? _Really?_


----------



## MikeBcos (Dec 17, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> And imagine that the resulting photo had the clarity and accuracy to be printed on a 17 meter billboard.  The same clarity and accuracy that had only been achievable in the past with iso50 film in a tightly controlled studio.  This ability is not far off from what we can do now with modern full frame DSLRs. And it's not unreasonable to expect this type of power within the next ten years.
> 
> Can you seriously not see how this is a benefit? _Really?_




I'm guessing that most people here have never seen a billboard up close. i used to print them for a living. The original artwork would usually be 11x17, it was scanned and separated CMYK film output, still at 11x17.

These films were then projected onto 60 inch metal plates in sections, the final resolution on the billboard was 15-30 dpi. You don't need much clarity and detail for it to look good on a billboard.

In fact, too much detail is detrimental, billboard images have to be clear and simple so people can take them in in their entirety in the few seconds it takes to drive past them.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Dec 17, 2008)

epp_b said:


> Who shoots somewhere other than a studio when they're printing a billboard?


lot of folks like with sports, car, aircraft, travel, landscape & etc


----------

