"Protocol for comparing noise performance of film and digital sensor"

www.dxo.com/sites/dump.dxo.com/files/dxoimages/ei/sci-publications/2012%20Film_vs_Digital_final_copyright.pdf

¡Muy bueno !

Estuve reunido con Arnaud PINCEMIN, responsable para la zona europea de esta empresa americana y con uno de sus compañeros americanos en la Photokina de hace dos años para acercar posiciones respecto a la posible distribución del software de tratamiento de imagenes en nuestro pais asi como su traducción al castellano, en lo cual trabajan desde hace años y me parecieron sobre todo fotógrafos, no simples tipos preocupados por cifras y marketing, les interesa principalmente la base que es la fotografia, a partir de ahi hacen girar toda su maquinaria que es muy compleja y ordenada.

A mi personalmente me ha parecido un artículo serio. Interesante.

La leche, con buena luz hay 10 pasos más de RD con Portra 160 que con una Nikon 3Dx

the dynamic range of film is much higher than the dynamic range of digital sensor. The difference is not in the shadows where digital sensors can be sensitive to only a few incoming photons.

The big loss of sensors is this very abrupt cut-off at the saturation exposure. Suddenly, the sensor completely stops to record information. In outdoor scenes with white clouds on a pale sky, this is almost unforgiving. The only possible way to render details in such areas is to underexpose the picture and apply some local tone mapping afterwards, or bracket different exposures to generate a HDR image.

As far as dynamic is concerned, the negative film has potentially a clear advantage. If we apply the definition of dynamic range used for digital sensor (range for which the SNR is larger than 0dB), the difference is a huge 10 f-stops.

La conclusión es que tengo que comprar un congelador más grande

Por otro lado...

"... If we apply the definition of dynamic range used for digital sensor (range for which the SNR is larger than 0dB), the difference is a huge 10 f-stops. For casual photographers, larger dynamic mainly means larger exposure latitude that can compensate for bad exposure. More advanced photographers can actually get more and reveal more details in shadows and highlights than it is possible on a single digital shot. However, we also discussed that this threshold is questionable since 0dB can be viewed as a visibility threshold but it is certainly not enough for good image quality. When we increase the acceptability threshold to 10 or 20dB, the difference of dynamic range between sensor and film decreases very fast and sensors eventually perform better. Therefore, the difference is in practice much less than the 10 f-stops of the ideal case measured in this paper between the Nikon D3x and the Kodak Portra 160 NC. Moreover, the gain is eventually limited by optical problems as flare or veiling glare, although the optical flare and hard copy print limitations apply equally to both digital and film captured images. It is also worth noting that positive films do not have the same very wide dynamic and the performance of digital sensors is ahead in all aspects. Also, regular scanners may not have a wide enough dynamic to cover the film in a single scan and several bracketed scans may be necessary. To be perfectly fair, bracketed shots can be acquired with a digital sensor to also increase the image dynamic, so the advantage of the film in terms of dynamic will keep on decreasing. ..."

yo lo unico que se esque esta discucion de cual es mejor, digital o analogico es muy cansona...es como hablar de futbol o religion, cada uno con lo que le haga feliz

Exacto.

Estoy de acuerdo con Eric

Dejemoslo ya, no creo que nadie tenga que convencer a nadie....