16th June 2003, 05:20 PM
Opinion required from all experts
know this is a stale topic already. Film and digital; which produce better "QUALITY" when viewed on monitor (film is scanned) and print. just want to know views from everybody.
16th June 2003, 09:54 PM
In practical terms, I believe neither is better.
16th June 2003, 10:06 PM
Digital > Film
Film > Digital
19th June 2003, 10:38 PM
At their respective 'best', i think you can't tell them apart.
At which point do you consider a scanned film image 'film' and not 'digital', after it scanned? When a neg is scanned, it is a file on the computer, with orange mask and negative colours. Is this still 'film', or 'digital'? My point is that in the end, when viewed on the monitor, both are digital.
Scanned film can usually be spotted on the monitor on enlargement bcoz the grain is visible, unless your film/slide is very fine grained. Some like it, some don't. However, this is usually not an issue. A scanned negative at, say 2700dpi, will be equivalent to a 8mp digital image. When scaled down to screen resolution, say, 1024x768, it becomes a 0.8mp picture - the grain disappears.
Digitals (assuming straight from the camera) pixelate when you over-enlarge, or if your jpg compression is too high. This can lead to obvious bands of colour in highlights, like clear bright skies.
Digital (from digi cam) are (sometimes) more colour-space aware and can produce more colour accurate pictures, assume your monitor is properly profiled. Colour from scanned film (esp negs) is corrected more or less based on the preference of the guy photoshopping it.
There's a lot more to be said - any specific application you have in mind?