Talk:Comparison of digital and film photography

Fabrication
"Film images are very difficult to fabricate"

-No they aren't. It's just as easy to photoshop a digital image and then convert it to film using a high definition projector. As long as the projected pixels are smaller than the silver grains, there is no way of telling whether the film has captured a "real" or projected image.Klafubra 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, just how expensive are these high definition projectors? And are they easy to obtain and use? Those sorts of things would count as "difficult to fabricate". If it is the case, that statement should be elaborated on. --Imroy 23:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Issues
I think the main issue with sensor size is the degree of enlargement needed, noise is only an issue at higher ISO's, also there is the issue of hand prints, being that hand prints are likely to be more valuable than ink jets as they are literally printed by hand, they can be done digitally but then all the dodging burning can be done first in PS and is not done by hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.10.42 (talk • contribs)


 * Just what exactly do you mean by "enlargement"? Please explain what you mean.
 * As for hand-made prints, that's another issue. I know that they can be much more valuable, particularly things like cyanotypes. I scan all of my film, so I know that side of the process well and it is pretty well served by lots of devices. As for digital output to proper photographic paper, I think the options are much more limited. Ilford Photo announced last year some new papers that allow real silver prints to be made in Durst Lambda or Océ Lightjet digital printers. Despite all the hype around digital photography, there appears to be a genuine demand for "real" prints from digital sources, at least from the fine-art community. --Imroy 13:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ill give you an example of what is meant by enlargement, with a digi P&S camera a 7x5" print is often a 25x enlargment over the size of the image that hit the sensor, with 35mm film in a compact it is only about 5x.90.242.43.22 18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

SNR
"With a smaller signal, the signal-to-noise ratio increases."

Is it correct? 86.104.40.65 (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I've reworded those two sentences - hope it's correct now. --RenniePet (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic range
The modification at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_versus_film_photography&diff=prev&oldid=186194634 reverses the meaning of the paragraph, but the citations given do not compare film dynamic range with digital, only list measured dynamic range of various digital camera models. I think we need to either support the contention that "As of early 2008, many current DSLRs offer a dynamic range that is as wide or wider than film" or revise it. Some references to consider:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Nx2nqKLtbLAC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=film+digital+dmax+OR+%22dynamic+range%22+compared+OR+comparison&source=web&ots=Y4iu98xivj&sig=m6u5ryrP-OQ569-LJ9uTY1moZNI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA53,M1

which indicates BW negative film having 3.4D and typical DSLR 2.7D

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD1/page16.asp

which shows Nikon D100 with up to 2.8D

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28480878

which disputes Clark's work and indicates at least 10 or 11 stops of density for Velvia 50. I'll check this article again in a few days and if it hasn't changed I may modify it. Thanks, CarsonWilson (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who shoots negative film can find any base in this particular part of the article, frankly it should be deleted. I have yet to see a DSLR match the DR of neg film, be it colour and most def not b&w. Simply pulling off review on DPreview isnt going to wash, they do no tests on film, so there is nothing to suggest that the statement is correct. In fact, it's utterly wrong!

Go ebay a film camera and some neg film, you. Film DR is miles ahead...miles

Barryfitzgerald (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I received only positive response to my comments about dynamic range above, I went ahead and revised this section. Much more research in the area of film vs. digital needs to be done; for now I've cited the best references I know of. Let's have more experimental research and less talk on this topic!CarsonWilson (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The R. N. Clark Reference is out of date, both Velvia and Royal gold are obsolete, they already were when he did the test.  AJUK  Talk!! 10:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This section is woefully in need of updating. The citations are now six to eight years old. Many new sensors with much higher DR have come on the market. RED, Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad etc. all produce cameras with 12 or more f-stops of DR, up to 16.5+ (Red Dragon). In practice, the very best professional print film doesn't get a much beyond 10-11 stops.

Finding unbiased citations from a primary source is challenging. DxO have been benchmarking both film and imagers, here's an article on how DxO compare digital vs film.

With a little digging, I think we can update this page to help readers answer the question of which medium is best for their needs, within a context that includes products released in the past few years. I'll start posting some sources and edits here ... soon. - Plausible deniability (talk) 03:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Intro
While grateful for much of Dick Lyons' assistance, I'm proposing we either replace the footnote changed by Lyons at

"Between digital and film, each format has advantages,[1]"

from the book citation as follows:

http://books.google.com/books?id=vYIMZXSiHYAC&pg=PA26&dq=film-versus-digital&ei=-VfNSKeFKoOQsgO9o8xW&sig=ACfU3U2_wIbu-2SVTsqQCPnGicpYpTfKow#PPA26,M1

to the following book citation:

http://books.google.com/books?id=cLbl4MASwMYC&pg=PA170&source=gbs_search_s&sig=ACfU3U0WWFWikyJDxhk4wkuoMAbMCaa-Qg

or at least add this latter citation.

My reason is much of the book excerpt cited by Lyons contradicts the overall purpose of the article as I see it, which is to put aside the idea that one format is simply superior and explain differences in a more substantive way. For example, the citation states,

"At this point in our evolution of silicon versus silver, the debate is no longer based on image quality. No longer is film considered to produce a superior result."

This contradicts the entire major section of this article entitled "Quality" which attempts to show differences in quality between the two formats and the reasons behind this without advocating for one side or the other.

Further, the cited book reference assigns film the sole advantage of archival reliability versus digital's "instant gratification," which can "render the debate [over film vs digital] a non starter," and its ability to change ISO and color temperature.

The citation I'm recommending replace this one isn't perfect either but I think it's less partial to digital capture, and serves better to legitimize the topic itself, which was the purpose of the citation. Thanks, CarsonWilson (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Who is this "Lyons" you refer to? Anyway, there's no reason to remove a source just because its viewpoint isn't quite aligned with the article.  But go ahead and add a second ref, as the two viewpoints supplement each other. Dicklyon (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added the second reference (as 209.100.226.78), Mr. Lyon (sorry about the "s").CarsonWilson (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed
This page has to many 'citation needed' tags? on some statements i fully agree as they could be debated but many are just attached to common sense statements or otherwise general ages-old photography knowledge ... -> example "Convenience and flexibility This has been one of the major drivers of the widespread adoption of digital cameras" who would debate that?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.206.160 (talk • contribs)


 * Lots of people might debate it, but that's not the point. It may well be true.  But who says so?  Others would (and recently did) say that convenience is a negative factor for digital, as shooting film and dropping it off and picking up finished prints is mighty convenient.  What really were the major drivers of digital camera adoption?  Surely we can find a reliable source for at least some attributable opinions on this. Dicklyon (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Post processing
About my statement about post processing, I think that's an important point to go in there.  AJUK  Talk!! 08:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean this edit?

Film Shots will often require little or no post processing by the photographer, this is often utilized by photographers wishing to just choose the appropriate film take photographs and then let the lab deal with the rest.
 * Apart from the missing punctuation and odd capitalisation of 'Film Shots', I wonder how you justify such a claim? I would say that film and digital are perhaps even - film photography does need post-processing due to the scanning process, while digital needs post-processing because perhaps the photographer is snapping away on auto and relying on the sheer number of photos to provide usable results. It really depends on the situation, the person and the equipment though. I don't think it's safe to make a blanket statement on this subject, especially without a good source. --Imroy (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's an important point, all you need to do to justify putting it in the article is give us a WP:reliable source. Dicklyon (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think its down to the fact the photographer can shoot the film then let the lab deal with it, I think its mainly done for weekend jobs.  AJUK  Talk!! 13:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On that basis digital wins, i.e. you can publish direct from camera (either Web or to Print) KymFarnik (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

How to get the opinions replaced by an scientific article
As some editors explained, this article isn't great and is mainly based on opinions and even if cited, not scientific reliable.

Spatial resolution
This paragraph is chaotic and not scientific. First, it should contain a table with resolution needed, compared to size and view distance.

To structure it, i propose to divide it into three logical parts:

Spatial resolution in film
(2 x Line-pairs/mm)² x Width x Length = Pixel

Thats the main thing. And that is a reolution beyond megapixels, even if the digital cameras would have the full sharpness. Sharpness is visible even beyond aliasing frequency > filter curve (contrast versus lp/mm) explained. Listed should here other effects (optical, measurement accuracy, exposure to light) reducing resolution.

Lets avoid "Clark Vision" for references on resolution seeing that he compares images scanned with consumer scanners to full fledged digital cameras and plus his scanners are outdated. Just because there is a nice looking graph does not mean he has the best information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vance&lance (talk • contribs) 19:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Including a table with examples of line-pairs/mm (lp/mm) for different film types.

A 120 film scanned at 8000 ppi will yield a 324 megapixel image, not 50. The websites referenced do not correctly scan their film in the comparisons, scanning at lower than necessary resolutions and with scanners not capable of the maximum possible ppi. Yes, the scanned information is not all useful information, but neither is the information found in the megapixels of DSLRs. This part of the article is grossly inaccurate and if the author would attempt to print a very large print from a 8000 ppi drum scan from an Aztec Premier drum scanner (scanned by a skilled operator who would also match the aperture to the film grain) and do the same with a medium format DSLR file, the difference would be unmistakeably clear. Please fix this or explain that the statistics quoted were obtained by an amateur and not by any means a maximum as they poorly reflect the potential resolution of film.


 * If the statement is controversial, which appears to be the case here, it needs to be backed by a reliable secondary verifiable source. --Joe Decker (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Spatial resolution in Semiconductor Image sensors

 * First to divide: Tube image sensors don't need an Anti-aliasing filter, they are limited by analog bandwith.


 * Second: Digital image sensors need an Anti-aliasing filter. Effects explained.


 * Third: RGB (CMYK) Sensor and Bayer pattern, Bayer filter and transformation effects explained concerning resolution. Foveon sensor metioned. For example for red or blue structures (RGB sensor) resolution in pixels is a quarter of the so called resolution in megapixels. Thats true because its simply science.

Comparison
Here the results should be compared. Interesting: Measurements of digital image sensors taken with analog measurement parameter: line-pairs/mm. I could provide this data if copyright is released.

Although probably this paragraph is short because it mainly cites the results above, to keep the neutral structure imho it is necessary to have this paragraph.

Noise
This section isn't great too. Not scientific, too many vague words.


 * Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) explained. Doubling of exposure time increases SNR by 3dB.

Dynamic range
The topic is not complex. Simple a ratio. But many things related to it. Opinions replaced with science should help. Figures help.

Effects of sensor size
SNR effects, structure size effects and more scientific view missing.

Integrity

 * Color accuracy and spectral curves explained.
 * Other effects on color in digital cameras
 * Noise cancelling and sharpness filter, halos.
 * Other filters: D-Lightning, chromatic abberations, vignette + distortion correction
 * JPEG and RAW

This is my proposed concept, although not complete. Remarks welcome. Wispanow (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem to have the expertise (unlike me!), and I'm all in favour as long as it's referenced (which I'm sure it will be). I've been trying to reference some of this article, and have a few source books here, but not much on digital cameras (my Langford's Basic is 2000). We need to replace the amateur website refs - Dante Stella, Ken Rockwell etc. Film vs Digital is a thorny issue, so I wish you well with it. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Takes some weeks. Wispanow (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "We need to replace the amateur website refs" - I completely agree, in particular those by Ken Rockwell. Anyone read this guy's about page? --> http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm


 * "I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction."


 * No joke. I'm surprised by the number of wiki pages there are citing him as a reference. He makes alot of technical errors in his articles and should not be considered a reliable source. His site is little more than an amateur blog. - Razor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.40.6 (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance flags
Goodness, do we still need a "cool head" header on this page? More to the point, I don't think we need warning headers at the top of the article, including the ref one that I dropped. My edit explanation was a canned one, and not as precise as should have been; I haven't figured out a brief way of saying the hatnote flag is unnecessary because the section flags or the inline flags that follow the various possibly dubious sentences are adequate to the job of summoning maintenance workers. I'd also like to put something about old dogs and new tricks into the first paragraph. Something like, "Besides technological conservatism, ie the tendency of experienced practitioners to stick with techniques they mastered long ago rather than learn new methods, other reasons remain for continuing to use the old technology; the virtues of photochemical tools continue to make them appropriate for several particular niche applications." However, that's poor prose, barely grammatical, and perhaps impolitic or even not quite accurate. Me, I'm a newbie to photography, hence didn't learn the old ways, but I must give all respect to old masters who show that they know what they're doing while I stumble around in the dark. Ken Rockwell? Love the guy; his advice has enlightened me. Pro or Amateur? Doesn't matter. But yes, it would be pleasant to replace some of his links, to the extent that more reliable yet as well-written sources can be found. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply to my comments on your talk page, Jim. I *do* have a tendency to 'over-flag' things, more for the casual reader's sake. My objection to using amateur websites as refs is in my comments above; they aren't authoritative or editorially reliable. On this particular subject, comparing one medium to another, I think we need to be careful to be as accurate as possible, lest it turn into an opinion piece, which is the main reason I added the 'refimprove' tag. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

We must apply Template messages judiciously, lest overzealousness slide into unproductive Tag bombing. Far as I see, out of the several citations, precisely one is to Rockwell's site, which, if it were a bad citation, couldn't possibly be cured by a hatnote tag. The correct tag should be applied where it can accomplish good things, not simply pasted onto bad material without identifying the exact part and problem that should be repaired. And, as far as my limited topical knowledge allows me to see, the cited page doesn't say anything wrong. I have been a Wikipedia editor longer than a photographer, and an amateur writer far longer than that, so form rather than substance is where my skills have probable applicability to this and other photographical articles. Ah, well, can't spend more time on this as I must upload a few of last week's pix to Commons and attend to other editorial business before walking to the Wikipedia Meetup NYC at Columbia University, snapping churches or other targets along the way. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic range again
"There is no limit to the number of possible levels of colour on emulsion film,"

Sort of. However the noise level does limit the dynamic range. This is equally true with both number of colours and monochrome levels.

"whereas a digital sensor stores integer numbers, producing a limited and specific possible number of colours, resulting in banding and loss of detail, particularly in shadow and highlight areas."

There's normally no banding because the noise is greater than the output step size. Tabby (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Cost
I removed the following from the article on 26th September 2012, the reason I did so was that the text was predominantly OR, especially the camera price comparison, and cost per print comparison, which I felt were unfair in comparing new cameras to second-hand ones from online auctions:

I'm copying it here as the editor hasn't replied to me - our conversation can be found | here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of any Ken Rockwell references
All KR refs should be removed as they are notoriously unreliable. Refer http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm quote: 'This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact." ' KymFarnik (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Rapid change in technology, dated references
This article needs serious help. A lot of references are 5+ years old. Technology has changed (and is changing rapidly) and as a result assessments made even 2 years ago are invalid today. Eg: ISO noise performance and dynamic range of the Pentax K-5 or Nikon D7000 (same sensor), or Nikon D4 or D800, or Canon 1D C a 1D X show the point. KymFarnik (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

2007 is not "current". 2006 even less so.
User:NickCochrane just reverted my change, reinserting a Kodak study from 2007 as "current" and "scientific" and "consensus". Clearly, anything in the digital era that is six years old cannot by any means be called "current". An article that does not reference its methods cannot be called "scientific". What one commercial company publishes cannot be called "consensus". In addition User:NickCochrane added an even older blogpost from 2006 as further support for the questionable statements.

I'm not going to start an edit war here, but there may be other people who agree with me that six year old sources are of nil value here. If so and you add a supportive comment here on the talk page and possibly revert User:NickCochrane's changes, I think that would improve the truth level of the article considerably. --Mlewan (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I don't agree that the Kodak study is valueless (but I haven't read it), but it certainly cannot be described as 'current'. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources but, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't know whether that blog is by a recognised 'expert'. Really there's a lot of outdated and biased material in this article, and articles like this will always attract the partisan editors inserting POV material. I'd like to take it in hand, but sadly I don't have the sources needed to do that. I'll revert the blog per WP:RS. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A study by a company who has hired some of the greatest minds in chemistry cannot be called scientific? Think again. Further, the information is still held if there is no opposing evidence to this day in 2013. Where is the opposing evidence? There is none. NickCochrane (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Kodak study could be seen as biased since it conducted, paid for and published the study and was a major producer of film and photographic products. Self-interest is often stronger than a desire for neutrality. If you can link the study from a third-party, peer-reviewed source, be my guest. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a 2011 source by an independent party. It's very thorough, the results rule scientifically in favour of film, especially in terms of latitude and dynamic range, image quality because of digital noise, etc. This is consistent with the previous scientific study by Kodak. NickCochrane (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you; sadly online retailers are normally considered to be questionable sources. Try looking at some of the sources listed here instead, or choose a source that is known for fact-checking and editorial controls. As for Kodak's 'study', it's a clever piece of marketing bullsh*t designed to promote the company's products, and is hardly a scientific study. There's not even an author's name cited! Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you even LOOK at the study? It's so in depth and may be hosted by a retailer (who sells DIGITAL equipment by the way and ruled in favour of film) and involves 1000s of industry professionals. Before you become a blind wikipedia nazi, understand I just posted two highly scientific studies. Get real pal. NickCochrane (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No I didn't view the videos on zacuto.com; I had neither the time nor the patience to sit through a pile of videos, though i may do so at some point, so thanks for the link. I agree with Dicklyon (below); we can say "According to zacuto.com..." or similar, but we can't cite it as a scientific study; same for the Kodak link. Please stay calm and watch your language on WP; calling people 'crazy' and 'nazi' is a personal attack and can be construed as incivility. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I looked at the refs. The Kodak paper is obviously bullshit, and as a primary source with stupid claims should not be cited. The videos are more interesting, primary sources, good info, and can be cited for the opinions there. But not in the lead, and not as support for a claim of consensus. That would need at least a good secondary source. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The Kodak is not bullshit. Are you crazy. Before any of you people criticize the existing data, why don't you provide evidence AGAINST the claims? Without any evidence otherwise, it still rules favorably for film. NickCochrane (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not crazy. The are claiming "A single frame of color film scanned at 4K by 3K resolution with 10-bit depth contains about 50 megabytes of data."  It's true that the data of such a scan would occupy 47.2 MB uncompressed.  But that's not data contained in the film.  For that, you need to look at information content.  They claimed to be addressing the question "How much image information can be captured and stored on a single frame of 35mm  color negative film?"   But they treat these concepts of data and information as interchangeable, completely ignoring the effects of film-grain noise, spatial correlation, etc.  They go on to say "We have conducted tests where we have scanned film at 6K by 4K resolution at 10-bit depth, resulting in about 100 megabytes of data, or twice as much image information."  That's not information about an image, just data; to the extent that it's information, it's information about the film noise, not about the image.  It's bullshit.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not bullshit. There is more image information to be found. The image (signal) and the noise are two different observables in an exposed film, and importantly they are uncorrelated. In other words the noise has no affect on the signal, and the signal has no affect on the noise. There is no dividing line between where the signal ends and the noise begins. They are co-present all the way down to the atomic domain. In digital, however, there is a definitive end to the signal long before such a domain is reached. Scanning a film at increasingly higher resolution will capture more of the signal (the image), but it will also capture more of the noise. Both are present at all magnifications, right down to the atomic domain, but at higher magnifications it just becomes increasingly more difficult to distinguish between the signal and the noise. But unlike digital - it's not impossible. As a consequence there are subtle qualities that film exhibit which digital can't.

Contentious text and refs
I removed these references, and the text supported by them, from the header; these are primary sources which don't reflect a consensus. The Kodak source (discussed above) is promotional bullshit. Some sources say that negative film currently has higher resolution, image quality, latitude , dynamic range and information than digital image capture. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Great Camera Shoot Out
Could someone go over the Zacuto movies in detail and validate them against the text in the article? I do not have the additional hours of my life to do it myself, but I browsed through them and found no support for what the article currently says: "Film consistently was measured at having the highest dynamic range and latitude". While some commentators claimed film was best for certain cases (like blown out highlights), many of the commentators praised digital compared to film.

Besides, the article should not say "in-depth, and complex study", as there is no independent reliable source verifying that they are in-depth and complex. And the article should mention which year the study took place (2011). --Mlewan (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I can't check this source as I'm not on a broadband connection; and i agree that the article shouldn't say "in-depth, and complex study", that would be WP:OR because the editor who wrote that has determined the depth and complexity for her/himself. Tbh I ha ve better things than playing edit-wars with POV pushers to do.... :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There aren't many secondary sources about this shoot-out, but those I can find (blogs and such) seem to emphasize how subjective it is, and how you need to watch the whole 90 minutes to appreciate the message. None that summarize what the message is, which I think is what we'd need if we want to summarize anything from it.  Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I did some updates that correspond to my impression of the Zacuto videos. NickCochrane made some further updates, but I think the paragraph could be further improved.
 * I do not know why the word "digital" was added to "filmmaking accessories manufacturer". Zacuto sells things like tripods, bags and other accessories that hardly can be considered "digital".
 * Calling the Canon 5D Mark II a "major digital cinematography camera" may be overstating it. It is primarily a still photo camera, but its additional movie recording abilities happen to make very good movies.
 * The Nikon D700 was not part of the study, as far as I remember. I do not even think the D700 can record movies. The D7000 may have been part of the study. Again, hardly a "major digital cinematography camera".
 * It would be good to mention the brand of the films as well. As far as I recall it was some Kodak films, but I do not remember hearing which cameras they were used with. Besides, I think Kodak has stopped producing any film today. I do not know if that is worth mentioning in the article. --Mlewan (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are unqualified to edit this article if you think Kodak does not still make film, or that you won't even look at the study. Do a google search if you are so inclined. A DSLR is considered a major cinematography camera if it is being used to shoot feature movies, which it is. I can't believe some of you people, I am a professional photographer and my parents have been in the film industry for 30+ years, I practically grew up on film sets. I would suggest you do not make any further edits and try to call in members of Wikiproject Film who are actually qualified to comment on this article. NickCochrane (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite what you claimed below, that is true form of Wikibullying. Demanding a good-faith editor not to edit is both a violation of WikiBullying and WP:NPA.  You should apologize to Mlewan.  Despite not knowing what Kodak's current film manufacturing status is, I too have grown up on film sets and can attest all of Mlewan's points are valid.  And as Kodak, as you are admitting, is a film manufacturer solidifies its very blatant conflict of interest in its "studies."  --Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * NickCochrane, any editor may comment on this article or edit it; no qualifications required except perhaps a working knowledge of the Five Pillars. Some of us watch articles to ensure they don't dissolve int a mess, but nobody owns them. FWIW I've a B.A. in photography and I use and develop film, so I do know my stuff. So let's stick to discussing the article, not throwing personal attacks and assumptions around, shall we? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking of removing this item altogether. The study is out of date using out of date cameras. The single user attempting to input this has been on a "film is better" crusade for a couple of months now painstakingly trying to find sources that "prove" his POV like the blatant WP:COI Kodak and even a film movie theatre owner. This item only comes from POV-pushing.--Oakshade (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind Oakshade is just a wiki-bully who has been harassing me for some time. He even opened up a bad-faith frivolous sockpuppetry case against me in the past. NickCochrane (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikibully? Talking about Ad hominem and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT wrapped into one.  If anyone is interested in the "frivolous" sockpuppet case against this user, have a long browse at Sockpuppet investigations/NickCochrane/Archive which all admins considered it Likely that he was using a sock.  As aways I have been neutral on the film vs. digital opinion but will always argue against POV pushing.  If that's the definition of "Wikibully" then this project needs more of them. --Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to add to the hilariously described "frivolous" sockpuppet case against this user, NickCochrane is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. And this "Wikibully" (me) had nothing to do with it. --Oakshade (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this, as others expect this one user seem in agreement. It's an apples oranges comparison that uses out of date cameras that are generally "prosumer" models by an obscure camera accessory maker. It was placed with POV-pushing to boot. Look out for socks, possibly LenaLeonard, Etobgirl, CinephileMatt or perhaps a newly created sock account.--Oakshade (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There are still big problems with the article though, and I predict that it will have to be deleted in a few years' time. When it comes to still images, it would be difficult to find anyone who today seriously claims any intrinsic advantage of film, considering all the digital full frame and medium format film cameras with 30-80 Megapixel and other measurable advantages. When it comes to movie cameras, I would suspect the same to be the case, if not today, then in the very near future. The main weakness with the article is that it is written as if it was about the current situation, but the situation changes day by day. It could perhaps be salvaged if it was rewritten as some "History of digital overtaking film photography" with crucial moments, like the dates of the introduction of some digital camera technology, or when the first "X megapixel" camera was launched or so. Even so, it would be very similar to the existing digital camera history unless it had well researched comparisons to the film technology of the time. --Mlewan (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Digital cameras progress
Digital camera is fast to be obsoleted and also the article about digital camera is. IMO the Section of Cost should be updated. I propose the Section of Cost to change with:

Film and digital imaging systems have different cost emphases. Digital cameras image result can be deleted anytime, if we are not happy with the image and then shoot again. It make digital camera overall cost is cheaper than film cameras. Film cameras are quite inexpensive to purchase, especially used equipment. But film and development costs are ongoing. However, in the digital realm, it could be argued that the constant state of technological change will cause a digital user to keep upgrading and buying other equipment once their digital camera becomes quickly obsolete. Other costs of digital photography include specialist batteries, memory cards and long-term data storage. Inkjet printers can make more quality prints and easily from digital files than (kioks) photo-print which only has up to 300-360dpi resolution whatever the Mega Pixels you have, but commonly inkjet printer can only print up to A4 print size.Gsarwa (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Gsarwa and thanks for discussing your addition here. The point about obsolescence is fine as long as it's not written in first-person (there is no 'we' in Wikipedia), and it's referenced from a reliable source. I reverted your addition because it removed a reference unnecessarily; the point can be made without removing the reference. Anyway this article's a mess; I'll try and copy edit it when I have the time and patience. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your consideration. I see that almost all about photography articles is based on film cameras. Certainly is not wrong when it are initial written, because at that moment the digital photography is initial to grow, but today certainly all be different. One thing maybe forgotten that digital camera has propietary processor software and it still progressing, while sensor progress has limitation and also the lens. The future is software and not hardware anymore as Nokia did with its PureView data binning. Panasonic FZ70 Bridge camera has followed Nokia. Maybe today digital cameras only need UV filter for lens protection and circular polarizing. Some cameras has more than 100 creative filters and the propietary processor software can reduce barrel distortion of wide-angle lens and as reverse the processor can make barrel distortion of long zoom image. ND filter also can be simulated with reduce the sensitivity of the sensor. In digital camera the important thing is sensor quality (not directly means the size), the second is software (there are possibilty open source Android software will be adopted), and the last is lens quality. Why the lens is the third, not the first as in film camera, because many superior and inferior things of the lens can be corrected/simulated by software. In DxO Labs article, some I have mention above can be read, at least as general knowledge.Gsarwa (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Aesthetics
Hello, this article describes the technical differences between digital and film technologies. But it lacks a section on aesthetics, that is, what kinds of effects the technologies cause or prevent, and how they allow or prevent to use them intentionally for artistic purposes. Thank you! --179.25.161.169 (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed! I'll be working on this section.CaffeinAddict (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * But it will need references. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. But the funny thing is, the main argument amongst photographers/cinematographers are the aesthetics, work ethics, etc of film rather than the technical-only differences displayed in the article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolution equivalents?
Did a cursory read looking for resolution equivalents between film and digital and did not see anything so is this info else where (i.e. SEE ALSO) or is the info still somewhere in the article?Septagram (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I happened to be reading this article to see whether it discussed comparisons of film grain and digital pixel density. The article states " A medium format film image can record an equivalent potential of approximately 400 megapixels,[8] while large format films can record considerably larger (4 × 5 inch) which equates to around 800 megapixels on the largest common film format, 8 × 10 inches, without accounting for lens sharpness.[9]" with two different sources. These pixel numbers are not proportional to the area of these film formats, so something's not right here. We need some reasoned definitions, explanations and data. SPECIFICO talk  20:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Relative environmental impacts of film photography & digital photography Suggestion
A new section on the relative environmental impacts of film photography & digital photography would be appropriate in this article. However there appears to be scant verifiable literature on the subject, so an expert input would be very welcome as it would involve gathering contemporary data from a number of sources. Jamesmcardle(talk) 00:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Title Neutrality
I don't believe the current title reflects the spirt of WP:NPOVTITLE and is also unencyclopedic and inconsistent. "Comparison of digital and film photography" would be a much better title, in the vein of Comparison of text editors and such. FiduciaryAkita (talk) 05:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)