Topic: Film is better than digital and here's why

[Bryan]

This is more about cine film but I think it applies to still film as well.

http://www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/2089-we-may-have-solved-the-mystery-of-why-film-just-looks-better?utm_source=www.lwks.com+subscribers&utm_campaign=315ade6dfd-RSN_Oct10_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_079aaa3026-315ade6dfd-77487181

[imagesfrugales]

Hm, I expected another boring film vs. digital debate, but the 3 pages were rather interesting for me. I'm always impressed how the special film look can be "rescued"  in digitized (scanned) pictures and the answer may be noise. Even a professional photographer said when watching some of my hybrid prints that the analogue character can be seen on the first sight.

Another example from the world of music. I once digitized a vinyl record, then played the CD pretending it were the vinyl disc. All listeners praised the superiority of the supposed analogue record. Since then I don't need to explain or justify myself why I mostly scan my negs instead of recording digitally from the beginning.

[timor]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[tkmedia]

I recall circa late 1980's early 1990's I used a program on the Apple Macintosh called "Digital Darkroom". I was perplexed that adding noise to an scanned negative image made the image "better".

[Photo_Utopia]

It was an interesting read, didn't really tell me anything I didn't know i.e that noise introduced into a signal reduces perceived artefacts.
For a long time I've added random noise into sky and other areas of tone to make more natural, the human eye is noisy and probably its why the eye prefer film and noise; and for discerning end users why areas of continuos tone like cyan skies look false.
I've looked at clear sky with my naked eye and I see lots of noise; its in me, not the sky but the eye expects its-a paradox where noisy looks more–correct...

[timor]

Not our eyes are "noisy", but our brains. 

[SLVR]

I've been adding noise into my Mograph and VFX work for a long period of time. I came to this conclusion years ago. Noise is great for adding texture and making 3D or VFX tangible.

Ive found that when scanning negs if they are "too perfect" they can look strange. But to me don't lose that film look. While away I shot some APX25 and when scanned a lot of the negatives were grainless but others did have some grain (likely noise from the scanner). I did find that the noise didn't detract from the image and I was still pleased with the results.

But at the same time the images which had no grain or noise didn't feel clinical or that they lacked the film feel or look.

However I did find that Kodalith, virtually grainless when exposed and developed correctly, did lose a bit of that film feel because of the nature of the film. The images got their character from the lens effects of shooting wide open in bright sunlight.

[tkmedia]

Adding noise is not always as necessary and does depend on the delivery method of the image. When the image is say on some types of texture printed paper, uncoated papers, noisy video format or transferred from multiple generations of film stock. But... may still be needed a bit when blending multi-sourced mixed media imagery.

[gsgary]

Not our eyes are "noisy", but our brains. 

My mouth can be very noisy after real ale

[timor]

Not our eyes are "noisy", but our brains. 

My mouth can be very noisy after real ale

That go together. 

[Francois]

I've been adding noise into my Mograph and VFX work for a long period of time. I came to this conclusion years ago. Noise is great for adding texture and making 3D or VFX tangible.

Ive found that when scanning negs if they are "too perfect" they can look strange. But to me don't lose that film look. While away I shot some APX25 and when scanned a lot of the negatives were grainless but others did have some grain (likely noise from the scanner). I did find that the noise didn't detract from the image and I was still pleased with the results.

I feel we are often brainwashed into believing that digital=perfection when in fact it isn't the case at all. It does have defects, they're just very different from what people are used to.
I too discovered years ago that noise and grain are the best way to hide defects. Simple yet effective.
I'm reminded of the first time I ever saw Jurassic Park on my old analog TV. I just couldn't get what the fuss was all about. When shrinking the image to broadcast resolution, it completely destroyed the realism of the dinos. The ended-up looking like cut-outs layered on the movie... I don't think that was what Spielberg had in mind.