Search the Community

Flatbed scanned 35mm negative film is about equal to a 3 or 4 mp digital P&S camera...that is it. I'm sure the film fanboys will not agree. But put up or shut up fanboys. I don't pull this stuff out of my ass, as the kids like to say. I shot film for 3 decades starting in 1969 and digital from just before 2000. I also work extensively with film in the Archive. But more important than that, I test and test. My ego does not say...the tests say. Here is a minuscule recreation of some of the 'film vs digital' tests I had done many years ago. Tumblr deleted all my websites in 2019, so the material is all lost. But luckily, I had it on optical disc with the tests, as it was deleted a long ago from my drives. I didn't test any chrome films. Someone else will have to do that. Being a documentary photographer, I pretty much used negative film because it has more forgiving exposure latitude when grabbing fast shots on the street or available light photography. Most of my work was with Tri-X, Plus-X, Ilford FP4, HP5. Once in a while I'd shoot some Panatomic-X. Two Blind Beggars Hollywood, CA. 1972 - D.D.Teoli Jr. When you are doing fast, candid work you have no time for exposure meters. You guesstimate and shoot. That is not a good formula for shooting chromes. Whether film is not as sharp as digital does not matter that much...unless you demand maximum sharpness. For film has a certain character that is hard to reproduce with digital. You can use all the digital grain you like in post...but it is not organic and does not look the same as film. But you can come close sometimes. So, film and digital both have their pro and con qualities. Here are a few of the tests comparing Epson flatbed scanned 35mm film to digital. I've shown the full image taken with a crop sensor 6.1mp camera. A few of the close ups will follow. To see them all go to the link below. The film may have come out slightly better with a drum scan, but a better scan just shows the grain sharper...it does not magically make the film super sharp unless the sharpness is there. These tests were done with what the average prosumer person may use, as most people don't have a drum scanner. All tests were done with a tripod. Epson R-D1s 6.1mp Zeiss 35mm f2 Epson R-D1s 6.1mp Zeiss 35mm f2 cropped Kodak Easyshare C653 6.1mp P&S cropped Leica M8 Kodak Ektar 100 film Zeiss 50mm f2 cropped Leica M8 Tri-X film Zeiss 50mm f2 cropped (Note: This scan was done by a professional photo processing service and is a sample of the type of scan they give you when they develop your film.) Leica M240 24mp Zeiss 50mm f2 cropped I put a handful of the test photos at this link. I had hundreds of tests at the Tumblr covering close up, medium and long-distance comparisons. They all showed the same results...film is pretty low res stuff. Sample images from 'Camera Comparisons' website deleted by Tumblr D.D.Teoli Jr. : D.D.Teoli Jr. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive Here is an interesting timeline of Kodak film... History of Film | Kodak <><><><> Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Archival Collection Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Small Gauge Film Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Advertising Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. VHS Video Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Popular Culture Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Audio Archive Daniel D. Teoli Jr. Social Documentary Photography

HI SIR, CAN ANY ONE SUGGEST ME THE EASIEST AND MOST RELIABLE WAYS FOR THE FOLLOWING ... 1. FUTURE FILM QUALITY USING THE DIGITAL CAMERAS LIKE REDMX, EPIC AND ARRIALEXA... 2. LENSES THAT SUPPORT FOR MAKING THIS MOVIES IN A LOW BUDGET... 3. EXPOSURE LEVELS THAT SHOLD BE MAINTAINED IN BRINGING THE FUTURE FILM QUALITY... 4. CONVENIENT WAYS FOR D.I OUTPUT TO GIVE HIGH RANGE OF FUTURE FILM QUALITY...