Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Film Vs. Digital

  1. #1
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Post Thanks / Like

    Film Vs. Digital

    Primer on Film and Digital Capture by Rob Hummel at Cine Gear Expo 2011.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98FZ8C6HneE

  2. #2
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,342
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Film Vs. Digital

    Ha ha... that's a man on a mission

    When that is said, I'm just back from a one week trip with an Olympus OM as one of two cameras, shooting one roll per day. That's the first time for me since I went digital 6 years ago. The last years, film has only been a nice past-time activity, but this time, I took many of the best motives on b&w film only. Film goes to the lab tomorrow. I need a darkroom

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film Vs. Digital

    "... Film is not sensitive to gamma rays ... "

    Wrong. It's also sensitive to x-rays, and other invisible high energy EM spectra. this is why film stored in even a light lead bag can be fogged by as low power a device as an airport scanner, never mind gamma ray contamination.

    Nothing new in this presentation. Film and digital capture are simply two entirely different recording media, each with its own strength and issues. Film has had 100+ years of development behind it, digital about a third that. Lots wrong with both still.

    But we can make great photos (and movies!) with either! :-)

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film Vs. Digital

    Film can be fogged by as low power a device as an airport scanner... is it true? I thought that is is a problem if the film is over 800 ISO?

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film Vs. Digital

    Quote Originally Posted by haring View Post
    Film can be fogged by as low power a device as an airport scanner... is it true? I thought that is is a problem if the film is over 800 ISO?
    It all depends on how long the film is being exposed to the scanner's illuminating EM radiation. Fast films fog in a shorter exposure, slow films fog with longer exposures. So if you put slow film through a scanner set to a low power quickly, you will be able to detect less fogging than if you put the same film through the same scanner more slowly, or fast film through the same scanner at the same rate.

    As long as the intensity of the scanner's illuminating EM radiation is above the minimum activation threshold required by a particular emulsion to activate the chemical reaction, all the films will be fogged to one degree or another.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,083
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    6

    Re: Film Vs. Digital

    I don't like digital and i don't like film because both have pros and cons and both are not perfect.
    Tareq

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film Vs. Digital

    Quote Originally Posted by Professional View Post
    I don't like digital and i don't like film because both have pros and cons and both are not perfect.
    Um, take up painting? ];-)

  8. #8
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Film Vs. Digital

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    It all depends on how long the film is being exposed to the scanner's illuminating EM radiation. Fast films fog in a shorter exposure, slow films fog with longer exposures. So if you put slow film through a scanner set to a low power quickly, you will be able to detect less fogging than if you put the same film through the same scanner more slowly, or fast film through the same scanner at the same rate.

    As long as the intensity of the scanner's illuminating EM radiation is above the minimum activation threshold required by a particular emulsion to activate the chemical reaction, all the films will be fogged to one degree or another.
    Another thing to keep in mind when traveling is that high-altitude cosmic radiation also fogs film. So lead bags is a good idea even if you can get past security without xray.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Film Vs. Digital

    To build on what Lars and Godfrey have said, exposing film to radiation -- be it x-ray, gamma ray, high altitude radiation in a plane, etc. -- is cumulative. Of course, we are assuming that our digital sensors are immune, which may not be the case.

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,928
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film Vs. Digital

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill_Green View Post
    To build on what Lars and Godfrey have said, exposing film to radiation -- be it x-ray, gamma ray, high altitude radiation in a plane, etc. -- is cumulative. Of course, we are assuming that our digital sensors are immune, which may not be the case.
    They're not, but it takes a lot higher energy radiation to cause damage to a digital sensor than it does to fog film. Gamma rays or very high intensity Xray at least.

    The downside is that film is a 'use once' recording medium so. If it gets fogged You toss it and cry, then put in new film. With a digital sensor, once it's damaged, the best you can do is map out the damage until it's unusable, then replace the sensor. For a still camera, this is a small consideration as we have plenty of pixels to spare. For a video camera, though, the sensors work a little differently and small amounts of damage can prove more significant.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: Film Vs. Digital

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    With a digital sensor, once it's damaged, the best you can do is map out the damage until it's unusable, then replace the sensor.
    I seem to remember NASA saying that a D2x is good for one mission and a couple space walks and the sensor is done.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Film Vs. Digital

    Quote Originally Posted by Professional View Post
    I don't like digital and i don't like film because both have pros and cons and both are not perfect.
    Hey, you are in the wrong place...

  13. #13
    Senior Member Lars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sunnyvale, California
    Posts
    1,811
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    19

    Re: Film Vs. Digital

    There's always photographic memory. Perfect shot, every time.
    Monochrome: http://mochro.com

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •