Peter Figen wrote:
Of course, you have pixel when scanning, but if you are scanning down to the film grain with a high res drum scanner, what you get is film grain resolved by pixels, but more importantly, you are scanning the gradation of the film, which is what separates it from digital, and you are scanning it with analog tubes, which are very good at recording the finest of gradations in the film.
Regardless of whether a digital file is scanned from film or whether it comes from a DSLR, gradations in a digital file are determined by the bit depth not by the source of the file. It seems that most scans are done with 12 or 14-bit A/D converters and most DSLRs have 12 or 14-bit files. But it also seems that much more information can be eeked out of the highlights in film. Maybe this is where film and "organic" looking files have an advantage and may not be subject to equipment alone, but also subject to a photographer's exposure settings.
In regards to the 5D vs the 5D2, the 5D2 should come out ahead with 14-bit files vs the 5D's 12-bit files.
Peter Figen wrote:
Of course, nothing is perfect, but in the real world, very large prints look amazingly good. There's also a difference in how film looks when it hits it's limit of resolving detail compared to digital, which is harder to describe than to see, but the film goes to mush much smoother than the digital.
I don't think that the discussion here is about extremely large prints. I think many will say that smaller prints show more "organic" qualities from one camera to another.
surf monkey wrote:
Regardless of whether a digital file is scanned from film or whether it comes from a DSLR, gradations in a digital file are determined by the bit depth not by the source of the file. It seems that most scans are done with 12 or 14-bit A/D converters and most DSLRs have 12 or 14-bit files. But it also seems that much more information can be eeked out of the highlights in film. Maybe this is where film and "organic" looking files have an advantage and may not be subject to equipment alone, but also subject to a photographer's exposure settings....Show more →
You cannot have more information in one 14-bit file than in another 14-bit file. 14 bits is 14 bits.
What those data represent and how they are interpreted and processed could be different, but that's about it.
Tonal gradations in an image itself benefit from more pixels in addition to bit depth per pixel. The exception is when adjacent pixels hold exactly the same value, but that is never the case with 12-14 bit systems anyway.
To make the benefit visible in the same way as natively greater bit depth, you will either have to increase the viewing distance until the eye can't see individual pixels, or downsample the image using a greater bit depth.
Peter Figen wrote:
.... There's also a difference in how film looks when it hits it's limit of resolving detail compared to digital, which is harder to describe than to see, but the film goes to mush much smoother than the digital.
Film and digital definitely have a different look, I have no dobut about that - just look at the film shot thread within the "alternative gear" section here.
But this thread was originally about the 5d vs the 5d2. And despite the ease of doing so I've yet to see a photographic comparison between the two in this now 9 page thread.
gdanmitchell wrote:
You cannot have more information in one 14-bit file than in another 14-bit file. 14 bits is 14 bits.
What those data represent and how they are interpreted and processed could be different, but that's about it.
In regards to my "highlights in film" comment, I was referring to the ability to scan the film at different settings for the highlights, much like shooting with exposure bracketing to get better gradations in the highlights. Because of the analog nature of film, there is much greater range of gradations possible. A scan might have the same bit depth, but you can have much of that bit depth on a smaller range of the image. This is one of the reasons that "exposing to the right," works so well with film.
"organic" is when mold and mildew takes over the inside of the lens or camera body sensor
gives it more of an "analog" quality to the images
not "digital"
wikipedia says:
Organic matter (or organic material) is matter that has come from a once-living organism; is capable of decay, or the product of decay; or is composed of organic compounds. The definition of organic matter varies upon the subject for which it is being used.
I do not think the camera or lens was ever a living organism.
Seems rather ironic to me that people call the 5D files more 'organic' (whatever that means, creamy of tone I expect) when the newer 14 bit RAW files in the 5DII were supposed to improve the gradation.
cogitech wrote:
Not if I have 2 low-mileage 5Ds sitting in the cupboard.
Well, they're not gonna stay low mileage forever are they? There's also no guarantee that they won't develop a fault. If they do and there's no more spare parts available... All you have is two low-mileage but broken and unusable 5Ds.
Either way, you still kiss your "organic" goodbye.
alundeb wrote:
Tonal gradations in an image itself benefit from more pixels in addition to bit depth per pixel. The exception is when adjacent pixels hold exactly the same value, but that is never the case with 12-14 bit systems anyway.
If that's the case then 5D2 is going to have superior tonal gradations or light transition due to its smaller(and more) pixels compare to the 5D, yes? Which is pretty much adjacent to what Canon claim on their 5D2 white paper. I can only imagine any sensor with huge pixels (ie:12~20µm) is going to result in LEGO cities...
lexvo wrote:
I don't know if I understand this. I scanned some Kodachrome 64 and 25 slides and I was amazed about the amount of grain, especially in the skies.
That might have been a phenomenon called "grain aliasing," if the scan resolution was not quite great enough to fully resolve the actual grain pattern.
I currently shoot a 5DMK2, ever since I sold my 1DsMKII and I would say that the opposite is true. I think the images look more organic if anything compared to older Canon DSLR cameras, due to their color and detail.
Yes, exactly! It is how they are interpreted and processed... and with a DSLR that is entirely hardwired into your camera body... so while that may "just about it," it is essentially everything.
gdanmitchell wrote:
You cannot have more information in one 14-bit file than in another 14-bit file. 14 bits is 14 bits.
What those data represent and how they are interpreted and processed could be different, but that's about it.
dhphoto wrote:
What does that mean? How do you define organic?
It's funny that organic would mean less realistic and more artistic to some (e.g. those who favor the 5D). In regards to one of the prominent posters here, Jeremy Clay has beautiful photos that are far from realistic - he has a artistic quality to his photography.
As others have stated, good photos are not necessarily realistic or accurate, this may be why the 5D gets so much support in regards to the beautiful results these photographers talk about. Less resolution, less sharpness, less contrast between neighboring pixels, etc may result in the images they want.
It seems that in terms of photography, organic would mean "realistic" or "characterized by the actual scene, not processed by equipment or user." As in organic foods, a general definition could mean "natural" or "unprocessed."
If this is the case, then organic may not be the best term to use in regards to the image quality that 5D proponents claim. Or maybe I have better eyes than most people, because a "natural" shot to me of the typical wedding couple would have skin blemishes, shiny highlights, hair out of place, uneven lighting and irregular flesh color. A typical beauty shot looks thankfully, very unnatural, meaning not organic.
It seems that in terms of photography, organic would mean "realistic" or "characterized by the actual scene, not processed by equipment or user." As in organic foods, a general definition could mean "natural" or "unprocessed."
I've been admonished up above that "organic" in this context can't be referenced to reality.
n0b0 wrote:
Well, they're not gonna stay low mileage forever are they? There's also no guarantee that they won't develop a fault. If they do and there's no more spare parts available... All you have is two low-mileage but broken and unusable 5Ds.
Then the sun will gradually expand in size and ultimately form a supernova, destroying the earth. Later, the universe itself may either inflate into complete disorder, or perhaps instead compact upon itself in a big crunch.
mh2000 wrote:
it may not be the best the of terms, but that's what is used in art schools etc... so we are stuck with it.
>>organic may not be the best term to use in regards to the image quality
Fine Arts definition: of or pertaining to the shapes or forms in a work of art that are of irregular contour and seem to resemble or suggest forms found in nature.
I'm not sure how this usage of the term can be applied to the way it's used in this discussion. Usually in art or architecture or other forms of design, organic refers to a smooth shape or asymmetric form.
