P3D Digital vs. film

[cyponline@xxxxxxxx (Dale Mann)]

Digital vs. Film

Recently, when I dropped off a roll of 35mm film for processing  I asked
that the pictures be returned on a floppy disk as well as prints. I
wanted to do an armchair comparison test -- to see and compare the
results from Kodak's (expensive) digital processing equipment to my own
color scanner -- just to find out how far, far 
down the scale I am. I also wanted to compare the same outdoor scenes
taken with different cameras a few moments apart -- in this case a Konica
Q-Mini digital camera and a Canon Sure Shot loaded with Kodak ASA 200
film.  I wanted to compare the Konica digital images to the film lab
digital images, and with my own scans of the included 4 x 6" prints. 

Finally the day came and I popped the Kodak Picture Disk into the
computer. First, I was delighted to see that Kodak had included on the
disk, in addition to the 24-images, 24-thumbnail size copies, and Kodak's
Picture Disk Viewer software -- a simply slide show and image tweaking
program -- a nice touch.  Then I discovered that the Kodak disk images
were 600 x  400 pixels in size. The Konica Q-Mini provides 640 x 480
pixels.

Making a Comparison:

Color:   Whatever process used by Kodak to put images into digital format
intensifies colors.  Seen on screen the Kodak Picture Disk images are far
more colorful than the prints, my own scans, and more colorful than the
Konica digital photos.  They appear brighter than life, showing
intensities of color that most people like, but were not so pronounced in
the actual scene.  Using software I can also enhance color in digital
images but nothing compared to this. 

In this test: looking at color saturation, Kodak's digital conversion
techniques win. For true color levels, the Konica digital wins.  Also,
because no film processing variances are involved, the colors in the
stereo pairs produced with the Konica do not differ much in color whereas
with the film in this batch some of the two images clearly vary.

Clarity:   When it comes to razor sharp images everyone knows film beats
digital hands down, so, on this point what's to compare?  Well, can
images that started out on film still win "after" they are converted and
loaded into the computer? By whatever means? I needed to satisfy myself
on that point.  As it turns out, in this simple test, film is clearly the
winner, but only because I'm seeing images converted by a company using
some very expensive equipment. I can not hope to scan prints myself --
using any scanner within my budget range, and still maintain anything
close to original film quality.  Under average, affordable desktop
conditions, much, I'm sure, to everyone's dismay, the digital camera
wins. 

For those who want to store images on disk or share them across the
Internet the choice is clear, either we pay for film, processing, and
extra for the Picture Disk, or use digital cameras that, after the
initial purchase, cost nothing extra to use.

Hmmmm, then again, maybe we can do both?   

A pleasant weekend to all . . .

--R.D.






_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


------------------------------