I would appreciate feedback on the quality of digital files I could expect from having negatives (or slides) scanned onto a cd-rom by a developer vs the quality of the files produced directly by a good digital camera (e.g. Nikon 990). I am trying to decide whether to stick with a conventional SRL (a Canon EOS) and have the rolls scanned or to move to a digital camera. The SRL obviously has superior lenses and other features the current crop of $1000 or so digicams can't match, but I wonder whether the degradation from the scanning process would actually make a digital camera a better choice when what I need is digital files of the shots.

-- Chris LaFleur (clafleur@attglobal.net), June 30, 2000

Answers

First off, the best images for scans are either negatives or transparencies. Both have a much wider dynamic range than most digital cameras. Film contains many times e more information than a corresponding image from a digital camera. For example a full size tif file from a 990 is somehwere around the 6Mbyte range. A full size scan from an LS 2000 is in the 28Mbyte range. From a polaroid 4000, 52Mbytes. There will be much more information. The disadvantage of film is the delay between taking the image and getting it into the computer. The digital camera is a bit quicker, but not a lot. For example, you can take a roll of negative film, get a lab to develop it 15 min scan the frames you want into the computer and have images in the computer within 1 hour of taking the image. For the what the 990 is worth, you can get a canon 2710 film scanner that does both slides and negatives, and aps film with change in your pocket. The quality will probably be better too.

-- jonathan ratzlaff (jonathanr@clrtech.bc.ca), June 30, 2000.

As stated above, the scanner will definitely beat the digicam for resolution and possibly for quality. However, both use ccd imagers, and unless you have a wider range of colors in the storage format, ie 32 or 36 bits instead of 24 bit color files it won't make much difference in terms of film having a greater dynamic range as long as exposure, etc. is equivalent. Except perhaps you get more of a choice of which 24bits you wish to extract out of the greater color range?

It seems to me that the real question here is, "What do you want to do with the digital files?". If they're for web use or photos up to 8x10", a digicam will do fine. Don't expect a lot more at any kind of quality level yet. A 3.3MP camera will produce a print about 7.7" x 10.24" at 200PPI. The same print at 150PPI would be 10.24 x 13.65", but probably wouldn't seem to have much in the way of quality compared to the 200 PPI print.

There are some unique advantages to digital photography like lower long term cost and immediate feedback about your shots, including framing, exposure, metering, focus, etc. For instance, I was shooting fireworks tonight with a new Toshiba PDR-M70(for the first time with the M70) and having the display for immediate feedback was a treat in deciding just which adjustments to make. There's nothing quite like having the adjustments you think you should make confirmed on the spot... It leads to a lot less heartburn over whether you got what you wanted. The immediate feedback gives even a novice digital photographer almost as much of a chance of capturing great shots in unfamiliar situations as a well prepared professional conventional photographer.

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francomm.com), July 01, 2000.

I struggled with the same question and finally went with the 990. In retrospect I think it's a lot like comparing stock car racing to formula I. They are very different and very much the same. I recommend the digital route if only because it will allow you to enjoy a whole new experience. It's a totally different from SLR and at the same time the same. In the final analysis I'll bet you own a good SLR, albeit not the latest and greatest, so who's to say you can't use both.

Life's short. Try something new.

-- bill (this_old_house@pobox.com), July 01, 2000.

I'd agree with all of the above. When it comes down to it, it really depends on what sort of investment you already have in film. Personally, I've got thousands of B&W and colour negatives, and a few hundred slides, plus a lot of money tied up in film cameras and lenses. Abandoning all that just didn't make sense for me, so I went the scanner route, and was amazed at the detail and colour I could pull from negatives that were almost unprintable by chemical means. If I didn't have that legacy, I could easily be persuaded to go completely digital. There's still a lot that you can't easily do with digital cameras. Availability of very wide angle lenses is one area where digital is abysmally lacking.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), July 01, 2000.

Like Pete, I have invested in a lot of SLR gears (lots of lenses), even a slide scanner (the older Nikon Coolscan 1000), but that doesnt dampen my yearning to own a digital camera for the attributes mentioned by the above posts. That is the reason why I am waiting for the Canon D 30 body and have to start saving for it now as it is going to cost me a bundle. Kit.

-- Kit I. (kittiwat1@yahoo.com), July 01, 2000.

I too own a solid EOS set. I, for one, will wait till the digicams get to where I feel comfortable (as much as I do with my present equipment). I dare not predict how long that will take but the average film scanner (Canon) puts me into serious home digital business without breaking the bank. Maybe in the next year or two if I see digicams good enough to make a switch I'll do it. So, if there is hesitation then I say wait. Wish you the best.

-- Bob Magluyan (magluyan@home.com), August 04, 2000.