Film colour reproduction is way better than digital - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 02:43:59 am
content: Okay, this ain't one of your "this is my 'opinion', what do you think?" topics, where people are gonna try (and definitely will) to "change my mind", this is purely a matter of physics and how "keep it simple, stupid" always holds true.Film is always, always better than digital for colour, for warmth and for the natural human feeling it evokes. This isn't a debate, this is fact (sorry if you feel that's arrogant; it's my view, hard cheese, but feel free to politely disagree, but not too loudly eh? Too many bores on the internet with loud mouths, I personally don't wanna be one OR see another one):Fact, and I don't need this to be "verified" or "confirmed", I'm just posting this link as it makes sense, and I'm not too good at describing areas I'm not working with on a daily basis, so I don't know all the terminology.Again, this is fact, as arrogant as it may sound. I don't mean that film is more convenient than digital, I mean it's aesthetically, humanly, emotionally BETTER as a medium. Period.https://erickimphotography.com/blog/2017/05/29/why-film-photography-is-better-than-digital-photography/

author: schmitt trigger
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 02:58:10 am
content: There have been several color film processes developed (no pun intended) over the decades.Not all render colors equally.In my humble opinion, Fujifilm’s Velvia 50 was the pinnacle of color film, although many people prefer the Kodachrome 25.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 03:05:58 am
content: What a bizarre way to troll people. If you don't have working experience in the field, why posit so many absolutes about it? Why assert that your aesthetic, human, emotional preference is "purely a matter of physics"?Simply by posting your opinion to a message board you create a debate. You can't say "this isn't a debate". I'm reminded of certain dishonest political posters (not so much here, thankfully) who like to pull the "changing the subject" card. They'll say something along the lines of "My argument is on topic, your rebutal is off topic! Stop changing the subject by disagreeing!""Film" and "digital" (by which most people mean, chemical and solid-state photosites) have different properties and support different working methods. But I don't believe it is accurate to say that they "look" like two entirely separate things. There is quite a large degree of diversity within each technology as well as overlap between them.

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 03:17:02 am
content: Quote from: helius on August 20, 2020, 03:05:58 amYou're wrong, both about the medium aesthetics and about my intentions, but then, I may be wrong about you being wrong, but it's perfectly okay to be wrong... ya know?It's fine. Have your vent. I know my photography as a digital photographer with about 4 million+ photos to my name, and I know that, looking back at family photos, cine films etc, and stuff online about it, it's absolutely better than digital for realism and warmth.It's okay that you don't agree, but I do know my photos thanks.PS: What does "troll' mean? Sorry I'm out of touch.

author: bdunham7
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 03:18:56 am
content: Quote from: eti on August 20, 2020, 02:43:59 amYou are stating a non-falsifiable opinion regarding completely subjective matters as though it were an incontrovertible fact. Don't worry, you aren't the first. You won't be the last.However, just as an aside, unless you have your own color lab and darkroom, your film has been processed digitally for many years.

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 03:26:16 am
content: Quote from: bdunham7 on August 20, 2020, 03:18:56 amI worked for a guy, Peter Whitehead, who was the tour cameraman for The Stones, and also did Pink Floyd pop videos (Google him), and what he showed me and what we discussed in his living years, regarding aspects of his work from the 60s up to around 2011, I'll take as gospel, together with my own experiences.He'd probably forgotten more about photography and film making than many ever knew.It matters not a bit. This is my opinion, just expressing it doesn't make this a tit for tat bickering playground battle. I believe what I believe, I'm not threatened that anyone aligns their views with mine or doesn't. Film is better, digital is more convenient. End of story.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 04:38:25 am
content: LMAO. Can we start with the issue that there isn’tonefilm andonedigital? There are countless examples of each, each with its own rendering. Some will be better, some will be worse. To proclaim that film is inherently better is neither supported by fact, nor is it actually probable.Of course, we knew this was trolling the instant film was referred to as “emotionally” superior. Film doesn’t have emotions, and the emotions evoked by a piece of art like a photo come down to the artist, not the medium.

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 05:15:25 am
content: Quote from: tooki on August 20, 2020, 04:38:25 amReels of film have, and will, survive FAR longer than ethereal bytes on some long abandoned drive format. That's just one of many reasons *aside* from the aesthetic. Where will future historians find boxes of..... digital.... archives....Erm, oops.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 06:02:08 am
content: Purely from technical perspective film has typically higher color resolution then digital copy. Or perhaps more correct to say that digital copies generally have lower color resolution than film, because color gets downsampled to reduce bandwidth and storage. However this has little impact on human perception of color content. I recall blue ray format throws out 75% of color and still retains high quality from viewer's perspective. Whether full color resolution makes video look warner and stuff is probably in the area of audiofoolery equivalent.

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 06:23:10 am
content: Quote from: Bud on August 20, 2020, 06:02:08 amComplete nonsense, unless you have cataracts or are colour blind.

author: Domagoj T
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 06:34:27 am
content: The article you link is a one man circlejerk of non sequitur and gate keeping drivel that has no relevance to the topic other than the proclamation "film good, digital bad".I. Slowing down.No relevance to technical superiority. Nothing forcing you to rush taking a digital picture.II. Film photos look better than digital photos.Entirely subjective, and wholly dependent on chemistry used. Should I even address the fact that the example photos he gives in this paragraph are atrocious? It would never cross my mind to parade these in public, let alone use as an example of some imaginary superiority.III. Film photography is a better ‘investment’No relevance to subject matter, and arguably false. His price comparison is ridiculous.IV. Why I will never buy a new digital LeicaPersonal preference, no relevance, noone gives a shit.V. Looking at photo albums with my grandma.Print you digitals.ConclusionShit article is shit.Want a warmer image? Crank those reds.I shoot digital, but also have a home made medium format camera obscura. I love shooting with it and the photos that come out of it, but trying to claim that they are better than what a cheap DSLR can produce is a stretch.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 06:38:48 am
content: "I worked for a guy, Ebenezer Josiah, who was the stagecoach driver for Wyatt Earp, and also did breaking wild mustangs (read about him inLives of the Teamsters), and what he showed me and what we discussed in his living years, regarding aspects of his work from the 1860s up to around 1911, I'll take as gospel, together with my own experiences.He'd probably forgotten more about curricles and buggywhips than many ever knew.It matters not a bit. This is my opinion, just expressing it doesn't make this a tit for tat bickering playground battle. I believe what I believe, I'm not threatened that anyone aligns their views with mine or doesn't. Horses are better, horseless are more convenient. End of story."Every bit as relevant to the subject (former vis a vis current technologies) as what you wrote. Not meant as a swipe at Peter Whitehead at all: for a time, he was an innovative and influential film maker who could employ the techniques of the abstract avant-garde for sensitive and powerful narrative pictures. Are any of his films available now? The last I saw them was in 2006, and even then, they were only available to archive theatres as digibeta transfers from the BFI; the release prints seemed to be gone.

author: newbrain
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 06:48:48 am
content: Quote from: eti on August 20, 2020, 03:17:02 amFor an introductory course, though definitely not from a professional, you might want to lookhere.

author: 2N3055
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 06:55:59 am
content: No it is not.Fact, and I don't need this to be "verified" or "confirmed".Again, this is fact, as arrogant as it may sound.Film vs digital is same kind of discussion as vinyl vs digital.Analog is not better. By any metric, including aesteathical "feel".It is so inferior, technically, that it has specific sound (or look), it is audibly (visibly) inferior.It is literally so bad you can hear the difference.It is only that people are used to hear Beatles sound as it were, and that became part of experience. All else sound wrong.That is why I generally hate remakes of songs and movies. They just seem wrong, just because they are not originals. Even when made really well. Sometimes even better.That can be heard with authors that are active for long times, like Stevie Wonder. His old recordings, and new ones have way different sound and mastering. And they all sound perfect for what they are, including newer ones that are fully digital, microphone to loudspeaker...........Old movie people are just nostalgic about film.New kids nowadays don't give a f**k about vinyl, or film..

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 07:05:42 am
content: If I'm honest, I vastly prefer to see movies made and projected on film, if the projectionist is highly skilled. Having movie theatres closed for the better part of a year has been a let down. The few remaining "analog" theatres are typically very well run, but 20 years ago that was not always the case.So contrary to the claim that film is superior because of physics, I'm convinced it's about economics. I've had the experience of going to a multiplex and the projection cuts off or is horribly jumpy, and because of cost-cutting, the projectionist can't fix it for 45 minutes (because the theatre owners hire one projectionist to run 6 movies at once in 6 different booths). That was before digital projection. With digital projection the results are often consistently bad, because even though the movie runs automatically, the setup was botched and the levels are wrong. Not to mention the cryptic and unhelpful errors that do interrupt digital screenings: "lamp communication failure" etc. With cost savings come compromises.

author: Kleinstein
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 07:06:31 am
content: The color reproduction of films depended on the lab used and the age of the film, even if not overlay old so they show a greenish tint that the normal lab no longer correct.The chemical response is slightly nonlinear, so that the color rendering gets brightness dependent - thus this could be corrected digitally in the lab when printing the pictures.Color recording is also highly dependent on the light source - so the film / sensor is only part of the chain. So ideally one needs to adjust the color balance depending on the light and this is much easier digitally. The later digitally working labs to do the prints were quite good in adjusting the film film pictures, so they look good, even if the actual recorded picture was crap with poor light or exposure. the film negatives still showed the ugly side.In the early days of digital photography (e.g. 2000) I used a digital and chemical camera in parallel. In these days the film had some advantages, mainly with high contrast. However digital cameras have improved since than. Comparing the old prints with modern pictures they don't look all that great, though part of this could also be from better modern optics.

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 20, 2020, 07:12:12 am
content: Quote from: 2N3055 on August 20, 2020, 06:55:59 amThere's more to life and to enjoyment than cold, clinical metrics on paper. We're human beings not robots, and we operate and experience the emotional and spiritual realms. All the specifications and measurements in the world mean nothing if it doesn't "feel right". Film is a natural, honest process, digital is an approximated, best guess attempt to mimic it.By the way, all the pixels in the world can't even get remotely close to the clarity of film stock from 50-60 years ago.