Interesting comparison between 4x5 and digital

[Dan Wells]

I just ran an interesting if unscientific comparison between 4x5 (Wista DX, 150mm f5.6 Caltar (recent version), Velvia quickload in a Polaroid 545) and a decent digital SLR (Nikon D70 with the kit lens). The Velvia was scanned with an Epson Perfection 3200 (the sometimes-maligned two year old one, NOT the brand-new filmscanner) at only 1600 dpi. I wanted to stay under the REAL resolution of the scanner, and I know that critter doesn't actually get 3200 dpi-opinions vary between about 1600 and 2400 dpi actually resolved. This wasn't a scientific "same picture" comparison at all-it was just a look at what each could do with real-world shots.

Of course the 4x5 is going to WALK away with this test at huge magnification-4x5 beats much fancier digital cameras than this all the time. I wasn't interested in "actual pixel" magnifications or uprezzed files that equate to a print 4 feet wide-who ever prints that big? The digital shots were specifically chosen NOT to test the limits of the technology-no outrageous dynamic range or high ISO, normal focal length) I wondered what would happen in a real print, at sizes that I actually print. I have access to two nice photo printers, both from Hewlett-Packard. The big printer (at school) is a DesignJet 130, and the little one (my own) is a Photosmart 8450. The first test was a 16x20 (about 14x20 from digital, due to the aspect ratio) on the DesignJet. I had to scale the D70 file up, of course, in order to print it that big-I did this using Photoshop's bicubic interpolation routine. Everything was Unsharp Masked by eye for best appearance at final size. I couldn't find any HP paper that big, so I used Epson Photo Quality Gloss, profiling it as HP Premium Glossy. The 4x5 absolutely ran away with that test. The D70 print looks OK, so long as there isn't a print from 4x5 in the room, while the 4x5 is gorgeous! After seeing this, I must say that I really no longer consider the D70 a 16x20 capable camera...

After looking at these results, I decided to see how small a print still had a difference. Many people claim that 6MP digital is essentially perfect at 8x10, that there's no need to shoot anything else unless you're printing bigger than that. Time to fire up the Photosmart 8450, a brand new 8.5x11 printer with a reputation for very high resolution and wide color gamut (its native color space is Adobe RGB, not the usual sRGB). There's nothing better for small prints (excluding, of course, contact printing 8x10 Velvia on Ilfochrome and similar esoteric wet processes). I expected the two to be essentially indistinguishable at such a small size. I was surprised when the big camera still showed a clear advantage in an 8x10 print. Unlike the 16x20, you DO have to look closely to see this one. If you take a cursory glance, the digital print is just as nice, but any sort of inspection shows a great depth to the 4x5 that the digital lacks. Whether this is due to extraordinary detail, or to dynamic range (and the characteristic curve of the film), I don't know, but the advantage is clear even in a small print.

[Doug Dolde]

Why am I not surprised with your results?

[George Stewart]

If the 4x5 had been scanned with a pro-level scanner, the resulting image would be an order of magnitude better than that scanned on a home scanner.

[Jim Rhoades]

You better hide. The digitheads will burn you at the stake.

[ISO 2]

Dan,

Most of the users on this forum would agree with your findings a priori. Although the method is suspect, the intuition behind the comparison is heart-felt.

Strikingly, the digital photographers I come in contact with express an indifference to the subtlety of the large format print which you touch on here. The print-buyer who is unaware, responds with an eagerness to see the difference in quality - akin to a revelation of the senses when the subtlety of tonal scale and hues becomes a moment of eureka for him.

Whereas our digital colleagues may try and blind us with the science of digital technology which has blinded them through the consumer and convenience route, we might do better to respond by pointing to the traditional cibachrome or silver gelatin print.

[Brian Ellis]

These reults with this camera and a $250 kit lens don't surprise me but I'd be very surprised if you got the same degree of difference, especially at 8x10, with a top of the line digital camera and lens. My 6mp Nikon D100 with a pro Nikon lens produces results pretty much indistinguishable from even 4x5 at 8x10. 4x5 doesn't start to become dramatically better until I make prints in the 11x14 range. That's using a somewhat better scanner than you used (a Linoscan 1400) but still not a drum scanner. That's also shooting in RAW mode with the D100 and then converting with Nikon Capture 4. Were you shooting RAW or jpeg with this comparison?

I'm not trying to start yet another film vs digital argument, I'm firmly committed to 4x5 film as long as it's available (and it damn well better produce a noticeably better result than an inexpensive digital camera and kit lens given all the other advantages of digital). This kind of comparison always makes for interesting reading and it was good of Dan to post it. But I think we're kidding ourselves if we generalize from it to say that there is no digital camera and lens that can make an image comparable to 4x5 (i.e. that digital at this point and at any price level is simply an inherently inferior medium).

[Jim Rhoades]

But Brian;
You just bought another 8x10 Dorff. Oh and a 4x5 Linhof last year. Don't fib, Santa's watching.

[ADG]

I do a similar comparison, but with 4x5 Provia vs 35mm Provia often as I use a 35mm SLR as a meter and framing aid. This means I end up taking the same scene with both cameras and am able to compare 4x5 scanned on a Canon DU2400F flatbed and the 35mm scanned on a 'proper' film scanner (Minolta SDIII).
My experience has been the same as Dan's, (and I realise neither scanner is exactly state of the art).
I am interested to know where a roll film back and dedicated MF film scanner would compare with the above, I would expect this combination to be considerably better, and it should be bearing in mind the purchase prices.
I don't shoot enough 4x5 for me to consider this economical, as I would also need a shorter focal length lens to cover wideangle.
As above we as LF users often forget there are millions of others out there to whom the difference in quality we are talking about here means absolutely nothing, illustrated by the general perception of 8mp digicams among the masses as fantastically good quality.

[Steve Hoffmann]

If you are interested the 4X5 – 6X9cm vs digital camera check out my comparison images between 4X5 and 6X9cm Velvia scanned on an Epson 2450 and my new Canon 1Ds Mk II 16.7 mp DSLR.


http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm (http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm)

You can read my article or jump down to the new comparison image page links.

Yes, I know the Epson can hardly do justice to film. I was interested to see how the new DSLR compared to 4X5 with the scanning equipment that I have available to use….

[Leonard Evens]

I have a Nikon D70 and I scan 4 x 5 with an Epson 3200. I haven't made any D70 prints larger than 8 x 10, but comparing scans on my monitor at magnification comparable to what I would see in a 16 x 20 print, the 4 x 5 results are clearly better. That is true even after rescaling the 4 x 5 scan to 2000 x 2500, comparable to the D70 default 2000 x 3000.

[Rick Heitman]

I have both, a 4x5 and a Nikon D1x. Send me an address, and I will give you an 8x10 from the toyo with a schneider 360 symmar,, and then and 8x10 shot with a Nikon D1X and a 80-200 2.8 nikon lens shot in RAW and then converted to 8 bit ( which actually cuts my file in half) ,and both shots printed from Reed photo here in denver and then I will ask you to pick the 4x5 shot. I love my 4x5, I am learning digital, I am not sure how a lab prints either pic, dont really care, but at 8x10 my Nikon will stand up to the toyo looking for a rumble in any dark alley. Just my 2 cents, I will never quit the 4x5 scene becuse it is too fun.

[Ron Mc]

At work we are putting together a cheerleader catalog now that up until last year had been shot on film. As with most catalogs, some older images are being picked up for this version. The difference in detail between the scanned medium format shots and the digital ones are comparable to a 8x10 from 35mm film and one from 4x5. The digital is so much softer with less detail. FYI the digital shots were from a Nikon D1x shot in raw mode.

Ron McElroy

[George Stewart]

The two main advantages of digital, as I see it, are convenience and lack of grain.

Many years ago when I shot 35mm and MF only, I shot only slow, fine-grained films (Etar 25 and Technical Pan). The reuslts, in large prints were indeed fantastic. Grain in 24x enlargements was invisible on close inspection. The only issue at hand was a lack of fine detail.

Upon moving forward to LF, I have found Nirvana - the smoothness of fine grain films with higher ISOs as well as fine detail. IMHO, there is no comparison to a fine grain (or digital) 35mm image printed to 8x10 and that from 4x5 film- the 4x5 wins!

So, why do some say digital is better than film, and the big one that the EOS 1DS is better than MF, or that MF digital rivals and will soon exceed LF? I have a theory. I boils down to plain old eye sight. As we age the quality of our eyes drop, and we have problems focusing and resolving fine detail. I've been blessed with eyes that test better than 20-12.5, and I've seen those with poorer eyes rant and rave about sharpness and detail that simply wasn't there to me. If the goal in a print is sharpness and detail, it must be louped to ensure that our old eyes are brought up to snuff. In otherwords, the ultimate test of quality(why we shoot LF) is if it passes the test for the most discriminating customer. Those with poor eye sight, even if correct, will most likely not appreciate the full quality of a contact print.

[Mike Chini]

The most amazing photographic quality I have ever witnessed or used are contact prints (color or BW Azo) and Epson inkjet prints from 11 - 22MP medium format backs. Done right, both can provide exceptional, almost surreal quality although I MUCH prefer the control allowed by digital techniques when it comes to color printing.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

If this test were done using a Canon 1Ds or 1Ds mk2 with a piece of 'L' glass, the differences might be less significant (at the same 8.5 x 11" print size). I use a 1Ds as well as 4x5 gear. This comparison, though, is never conclusive due to the great range of qualities rendered by the various LF scanning machines.

[Glenn Kroeger]

One big advantage of digital is wind? With 4x5, I don't have any color films faster than ISO100 (without pushing). So add a polarizer and I am usually at 1/4 second exposure or longer. If all of the leaves and grass are moving in the wind, the exquisite resolution of my Schneider lens is worth squat! A Canon 1DsMkII gives me a 4 stop advantage at the same DOF shooting at ISO 200. The net result, may actually favor the Canon at larger print sizes where the movement is detectable. Even with movements, DOF is often a larger factor in the overall result than the inherent sharpness of the imaging system. So as they say, "horses for courses".

[ADG]

Wherever DSLR's end up in image quality, I think it unlikely there will be one that allows the user to twiddle a couple of simple controls and see the plane of sharp focus run from the foot of the tripod legs to infinity, and the vertical buildings and trees to be vertical etc...
We are not comparing apples with apples are we?

[Glenn Kroeger]

ADG:

Guess you've never seen a Canon TS-E lens!

[Frank Petronio]

I built a special custom cameras that uses an array of 162 Canon 1Ds Mk2 cameras to form an imaging array over 9x18 inches. The result is the HIGHEST RESOLUTION CAMERA IN THE UNIVERSE, and the New York Times is going to interview me about it next week. If you want to see the results, I have a photo of a mountain with sharp blades of grass in the foreground. The horizon is tilted not because I didn't level my contraption, but because I aligned my camera's vertical axis with the Earth's true magnetic field. It is much more accurate than using a primative bubble level. It's a rather large download: 7.76 gb - if you have a dial-up connection it might take awhile.

[Glenn Kroeger]

Quick Frank, patent it!

[QT Luong]

Frank, I see that your pal Dick has been good to you. Maybe your project explains why it's so darn difficult to find a store that have a

1DsII (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00064O8Z8/alargeformatphot)

in stock. More seriously, I think why Dan is seeing more "depth" in the 4x5 based small print is due to the way he processed the digital file. In my experience, digital files have natively a rather "flat" look (a bit like portrait neg color film) and they require much tweaking to match the color rendition of a film such as Velvia. This is particularly problematic in flat lighting.

[kreig]

how can a 6MP nikon digital even compare with the 20-40MP available on 35mm film let alone anything larger??? somehow all the resolution and clarity of 35mm has been lost in the race for digitization.

If you look closely at magazines (examples, Fine Woodworking, Automobile Quarterly, and others) there is a distinct loss of clarity in the images. Quite frankly we have gone 10 steps backwards in image quality in a lot of applications. This is not an argument for or against anything digital but simply about choices. It seems a lot of poor choices are being made. For some reason magaziines which would only accept high quality 35mm, medium format, and LF images have suddenly chosen to accept the poor image quality found in digital cameras that cant meet any kind of minimum standard??

I do plan sometday to plunge into digital some day, but still waiitng for the quality to come up a lot!!

Just my 2 cents worth

[Jeff Conrad]

The small format has a considerable advantage in achieving DoF in the
wind—at least when it comes to getting the shot. This especially is
true when shooting something like wildflowers and using one of the Canon
TS-E lenses (and the PC Micro-Nikkor 85 mm lens). In line with Glenn's
comment, at ISO 100, settings of f/5.6 at 1/400 sec. often will do the job
on a windy, slightly overcast day, while a 4x5 user working at f/22 and
1/25 sec. may not get a single shot.

Unfortunately, the small format's advantage in DoF is largely negated by
the inability to control DoF, as Ray and Tillmans (and probably many
others) have noted. In the old days, the DoF scales on manual-focus lenses
for SLRs afforded reasonable control of DoF, though mentally interpolating
between marked distances was somewhat of a pain. With the advent of AF,
the DoF scales disappeared entirely from most zooms, and those on most
fixed-focal-length lenses became so small as to be virtually unusable.
Moreover, manual focus on AF lenses usually was far less pleasant that with
the previous manual-focus lenses. Until recently, the top Canon cameras
included "Depth-of-Field" AE, which sorta kinda set the focus and f-number
from the focus spread. It wasn't the best possible algorithm, but in most
cases, it seemed to do as well as manual technique with lens DoF scales.
The DEP AE apparently never was very popular, so on the EOS-1D Mk II and
EOS-1Ds Mk II, the feature was eliminated to free up firmware space for
something else. Consequently, there is no current DSLR that really allows
control of DoF.

Of course, setting tilt and focus with a TS-E lens always has been a manual
operation, but at least these lenses offer the same smooth focusing and
readable DoF scales as did any manual-focus lens. The difficulty of
determining focus while working at a small fraction of the final-image
circle of confusion remains.

In theory, the DoF advantage of the small format, combined with recent
improvements in the imagers, should make it competitive with larger
formats. However, unless there is some means of controlling DoF, the
theoretical advantage would seem to remain largely theoretical.
Journalists, portrait, and sports photographers usually don't care much
about DoF, but folks who shoot landscapes and architecture often do. It
remains to be seen if the needs of the latter two groups will grab the
attention of camera manufacturers.

[Glenn Kroeger]

kreig:

I suspect some of the quality loss in publications is in the printing, not the original photography. Certainly, 6MP is a bottom limit, but 11MP digital capture wastes any 35mm work I have ever seen, and based on what I have seen from 22MP backs, 40MP is going to waste most 4x5 work. Sure, you can scan 30MP off of a 35mm frame, but much of the information in those pixels is about grain structure that is, after all is said and done, noise.

[Dan Wells]

I know that the D70 is no 1Ds mk II. Then again, a Perfection 3200 is hardly an Imacon... There have been numerous more scientific tests using 1DS mkIIs, Imacon scanners and the like. Generally, the 4x5 does beat the mkII, but it might not be visible at 8x10 (most tests rely on screen magnification, not prints, and they're looking at sizes that would be equivalent to a 24x30 print, if not bigger). Anyone who has a mk II (or any other ultrahigh resolution digital)- how does it look at 16x20? There was a recent test posted on the Luminous Landscape boards that gave 4x5 a pretty clear lead over a mkII at high magnifications.

I wanted to see where the difference became visible with the modest equipment I had around. I was actually pretty happy with how well the D70 did-it makes a heck of a nice 8x10, unlike any digital that isn't an SLR (I can't stand the dynamic range on any I've yet seen!). The kit lens is also a pretty darned good lens-a nice wide range and limited distortion. The D70's good, but 4x5's better even at a smallish print size (and no comparison in a big print). I'll keep using both (and 2 1/4 square) depending on the situation-try shooting birds in flight with a 4x5! I'm off to Costa Rica in a few weeks for a three week botanical expedition, and that's D70 territory. However, I prefer big film for landscapes near home, and this test confirms that...

I was thinking about an interesting feature some creative camera manufacturer might add to a digital body...movements! With all these small sensors on digital SLRs, the lenses have extra covering power. Is there enough space in there (distance between lensmount and sensor) to squeeze in some sort of tilt,swing and perhaps even rise and fall-in the body? It would have to be "front standard"-moving the lensmount- in order to show up in the viewfinder (with today's technology, I'm NOT willing to accept an electronic viewfinder so I can see the effect of rear movements, and any sensor ("rear standard") movement is behind the mirror, so out of reach of an optical finder). I'm not sure how to control it, because the actual movements are so small on a tiny sensor. It would have to be geared, or perhaps even motor-driven, because friction movements would NEVER be precise enough. Minolta already makes a digital body with a sensor that moves, although it's an anti-shake device, not a perspective control.

-Dan

[paulr]

These tests are interesting, but as someone pointed out, you were also testing that lens that and that camera's unique circuitry. It's important to realize that if you're looking for a "winner," any comparison of generalizations like "digital vs. film" will be meaningless. You can't judge digital vs. film--you can only judge a particular digital camera/lens/print combination vs. a particular analog cameral/lens/print combination.

It's similar to audio. People are relentlessly debating digital vs. analog. One side will point out that an LP sounds better than a CD. The response will be that 24bit/96khz digital sounds better than an LP. But half-inch, 2-track, 30 inch per second analog master tape sounds better than that. Yet 32 bit, 192khz digital sounds better still ...

In the end the question is wrong. there are no inherent limits to either digital or analog media. The only meaningful absolutes will apply to a particular format in a particular set of cricumstances.

[kreig]

Glenn,

The quality loss is not in the printing of the magazines. If you look at past issues before the use of digital cameras you see excellent quality, especially in premium publications. If you look at recent issues of Automobile Quarterly you can see absolutely terrible photos compared to past issues. It is easy to see the difference between a digital image and film unless the "enlargment" is small. Of course this does depend on whether it is 6MP or 11MP. In Fine Wood Working, Fine Homebuilding, and many others, the problems are the same, unsharp photos throughout the magazine. Again, I will say nothing wrong with digital technology as long as it is used appropriately. For me that means NOT going backwards in image quality.

[Steve Hoffmann]

Kreig:
Do you actually KNOW what type of film camera is being used in the magazines you that you think have sharper pictures than digital? Some folks may actually still be using medium format cameras for auto magazine photo layouts. A 6mp DSLR is NOT going to compete with medium format on a full page layout and a close inspection of the photo.

However, your original post stated that there was 20-40mp worth of image information in 35mm and this is just not true. There may be close to 20 but that’s about it. On the other hand a 6mp DSLR image can be resized up to 20 mp and be competitive with 35mm Provia F ISO 100 scanned at 4000 dpi. This has been demonstrated time and again in print and in many different places on the web.

Actually, you seem to favor “sharpness” as a criterion for judging photos. Digital SLR’s at 11mp – 17mp make images that are MUCH sharper than 35mm film scans. This is because they are FIRST generation images. The digital image was produced with ONE lens, the camera’s. In the film scan workflow every image is second generation because it has to go through both the camera’s lens and the scanner’s lens. Each time your image is projected through a lens you have opportunity for image quality loss due to film flatness issues and lens aberrations etc….

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Yes, Steve, thanks for bringing that up. For years I scanned 35mm transparencies on a nice 4000+dpi film scanner. Wow, was it ever better than my previous LS-2000. Plenty of pixels, but not really the sharpness I wanted. And the dust was a pain. It was essentially a picture of a picture. 2nd generation. My move to the 1Ds was wonderful. Clean and sharp, and 20x30" prints that looked great. Now after two years, I still want better, and 4x5 gives me the finest raw material. The only problem is that I'm back to scanning in order to continue with my comfortably established digital workflow to print. Of course, some scans are fantastic, at $50. to 100. a pop. Damn this traffic jam!

[Roger Krueger]

Printing 4x5 onto 8x10 digitally your most limiting factor is your printer. Not familiar with your particular model, but most if not all inkjets downsample to 300-360 ppi. That equates to a scan resolution of 600-720 dpi for your test. Yuck! Digital prints from a good scan COULD have all the pop and depth of a contact print, but no one makes a printer to do it yet. The older model Lightjet, and I think the Frontier both do a pretty good 400 ppi, buts that's just not enough.

High-end halftone reproduction is currently leagues ahead of one-off output, given the right source materials (sadly almost never the case). First-rate FM/stochastic screening should be able to take advantage of at least 500-600 dpi source resolution. Architectural Digest is a prime example--I dare you to match that on a one-off printer. Blind Spot's pretty decent too, at least when it occasionally gets the real deal like Burtynsky, someone who doesn't see image sharpness as a bourgeois plot against artistic integrity :)

For B&W you can contact print FM/stochastic imagesetter negs. Theoretically you could do the same thing for color, but you'd need a very good pin registration system to make it worthwhile--I don't know of anyone actually doing it.

[Steve Daniels]

They're all tools. Use the right tool for the right job. You can use an axe to open a can of beans, but a can opener works better.

I have 8x10, 4x5, 35mm and a digital SLR, and I don't shoot action with 8x10. I do shoot digital along with LF because it is convenient and gives me a record of what will be on the film after development. When I print the 30x40, you can bet it's not from the 6MP D100 file.

Digital has one unanticipated benefit over 35mm. When I shoot a telephoto shot with flash, the image is remarkably sharp. Although digital will never really appear sharper than film (NO MATTER HOW MANY MEGAPIXELS) because of the random shape of grain vs. the rectangular shape of pixels (you can hide a random shape in camoflage, but a rectangle stands out because of its regular shape), flash stops the rectangular pixels in their tracks, but a slight movement of grain stands out as a blur over the entire image.

Use the tools that you have for the appropriate job at hand. You will never see 8x0 used for Sports Illustrated, but you will usually see LF used for DuPont Registry (Fine Automotive publication). THAT'S what will set you apart from an an amateur photographer. Knowing what to use to get the desired result.

Remember - You will never see a Holga with a Polaroid back!

[David A. Goldfarb]

The Holgaroid--


http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=5957 (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=5957)

[Steve Daniels]

I spoke too soon! The Holgaroid will not become part of my arsenal. There's not enough room in my bag.

[Matt Wensing]

One 'problem' I have with the suggestions about digital overtaking MF or even LF (whenever it happens) is ignoring the relative cost. Leaf digital backs are still in the $20-30k range; I'm going to go out on a limb and say that digital that rivals LF will not be mainstream in my lifetime--I simply don't see the demand, given that 90% of the 'photographing population'--the most basic amateurs included, are content with small prints (8x10 max).

I think any discussion of the 'state of the art' has to take cost into account. Otherwise we could ooh and ahh over some $6 billion government/NASA/CIA project producing a camera capable of resolving every grain of sand in Baghdad. But who cares? Can anyone else afford to have and use it? And will real art only be made by those people that own it?

I got my Toyo 45AX with a Rodenstock lens off eBay last February for $1200. Digital has a long way to go before it makes bang-for-the-buck sense for all but the total professionals. Even the company I work for has a digital back for their MF camera but it's considered a waste of money given our needs. As Steve said, the right tool for the right job . . .

[Scott Fleming]

Mat,

Eggs Ackley! Maybe in three years an amateur such as we could pick up today's 22MP stand alone back for say ... six or seven k. Even that price is a lot of cash for something that only offers convenience over 4 x 5 film. Especially given that by then the state of the art backs will be probably 50MP ... although most probably selling for about what they are selling for now.

I have given up on any idea of digital capture for fine art work. It's a lost cause unless one has unlimited funds or a big enough buisness to write off the costs.

[Andy Andrews]

Since the "Digital Revolution", I've seen the quality of the photographic illustrations in most of my favorite magazines go 'round the bowl and down the hole', so to speak. It was a great source of delight to me to see the tv documentary on the production of this year's SPORTS ILLUSTRATED Swimsuit Issue. Walt Iooss Jr was shooting his redoubtable RZ II, another team shot the Pentax 67 and a third a 4x5! None of these worthies used anything resembling a digital back. They all had Polaroid backs for final checks. I note, too, that the NEW YORKER is still relying on hopelessly old-fashioned film for its most important full-page spreads. One of the problems with digital capture, speaking as a retired paid consultant to the photo industry, is the inability of ccds or cmos is render flesh tones accurately. A fudge is to maximize saturation when scanning, but this introduces other problems. Since the vast majority of consumer snaps are of people, a weakness of this magnitude could spell an APS-like demise of digital - at least at the consumer level. I note (at the grassroots level) the frenzy of acquisition of digital doodads has cooled considerably amongst my friends and acquaintances and one-time use film cameras are making a comeback at the neighborhood drugstore. Another problem the electronic appliance industry flacks would rather you didn't consider is the nature of human perception. The human eye has an average acuity of approximately 75 megapixel equivalent. The digital industry has said that they can meet that criterion. What they cannot do, regardless of mexapixel density, is eliminate our subliminal pattern perception. Perception is far more than
the ability to discern line pairs per millimeter or contrast, it involves a complex mind/eye feedback loop which helped our ancient ancestors survive by allowing only those able to spot the striped cat moving in the shadows or the deadly snake along the trail to escape and pass on their genetic uniqueness. The rectilinear array of sensors in digital capture produces an impression that 'something is not quite right' in the brain. And that is probably what you digital camera enthusiasts are thinking about me right now!

[Randy_5067]

"They're all tools. Use the right tool for the right job. You can use an axe to open a can of beans, but a can opener works better."

This pretty much sums up everything in this posting. Answers all the questions as to which is better. In the magazine ads, news, advertising, what is the audience they are playing to? And in that audience, if they shot the entire set with a 2MP digi, would more than 2% of them know or notice the difference? The big advantage that I have seen with digi is time. And that, folks, is what most of this is about. Do more quicker so you have time to do more. Don't get me wrong, I love my large format films, but if I were being paid for a photo-spread that I know would never be under close scrutiny for clarity or sharpness, would I shoot film, develop, scan, print, or would I shoot and print digi? Hmmm let me think.. 1 hour, or several hours for the same money..... High definition architectural where sharpness and clarity are essential, use film. Ad lay-out where 90 percent of the audience and/or the customer would never know the diff and could care less if you did take the time to explain? Digi. Time.

[Bill_1856]

So, what's your point?