[Leica] Comparing film and digital resolution

[hlritter at bex.net (Howard Ritter)]

Point taken?the final common pathway in both arms of the comparison is 
digital, and the cleanest possible comparison would be of a photographic 
enlargement from a negative vs. an inkjet print from a digital file. But I 
don't think any particular skill would be required, since we're not looking 
at any of the print attributes that take skill to select and bring out?just 
looking at how fine detail is rendered at large scale.

And the resolution of the Nikon Coolscan 5000 is surely sufficient to make 
the point with the negative material I was using, as the pixel size in the 
scanner output (even in the original, before the upsampling that was needed 
to make the tiny ~300 x 200 pixel crops big enough to see on the Gallery) 
was much smaller than the resolution of the negatives?just look at the 
vertical elements in the deck railing. As well, I looked at the negatives 
with a magnifier, and it's just as the scans show: there's no more than a 
suggestion of the uprights. There's no difference between the direct 
visualization of the detail and the scan rendering of the detail. Digital 
sensors of, say, 15 Mpx and up just blow away ordinary film.

?howard


On Apr 12, 2014, at 1:16 AM, Bill Pearce <billcpearce at cox.net> wrote:

> mARK,
> 
> Thanks for saving me the time of pointing out what is wrong here. The only 
> fair comparison is a print from a digital file with a darkroom print, I 
> hope both made by skilled printers. Otherwise you put the film at a 
> disadvantage.
> 
> Bill Pearce
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Mark Rabiner
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 11:57 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Comparing film and digital resolution
> 
> Aren't we comparing a  digital scanner against a digital camera?
> I don't think its a real film to digital comparison without a high end drum
> scan or at least a scan from one of those Hasselblad Flextight X1 Scanners
> which cost the same as a used Chevy Nova.