When will digital cameras catch up to film? Will they ever be

its what i ask myself everyday. maybe in 50 years?

at least i hoarded a hundred kilos of mammography xray film so i can endure the wait.

I feel like a solution (I'm not an expert on sensors so this is pretty simple minded) would to have something of a multi-ISO sensor. As in an ISO value for a bright part of a photo and an ISO value for a darker value of a photo. And I'd guess the user would be able to set a minimum and max for each. Obviously there would be multiple settings for contrast, etc. and what not, and it would probably be a RAW format only option. It would also be pioneered mainly by mirrorless cameras. Like I said, im not expert so does anyone think that's actually possible? It'd fix a hell of a lot of dynamic range problems that's for sure.

>>3130748
What's the fucking issue here? Why hasn't it been done yet?

File: 20170809-DSC00883.jpg (330KB, 2000x1125px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 2000x1125px

>>3130743
Keep shooting film, then.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>3130756
>Why hasn't it been done yet?
the base technology is all wrong. everything they build upon it will be flawed and insufficient. its like shooting jpeg.

the only way they can correct this is starting from scratch with an electrochemical type of sensor that creates a light imprint every time its used, a sort of reusable film emulsion that can output digital data too. they shouldnt leave the chemical reaction to light part out of the equation.

because the diffirence doesn't matter for huge majority of people.

>>3130743
I see these kind of shitposts every fucking week. You realize none of the "digicucks" are as desperate and immature as you to constantly make threads about how digital is so much better? Yea I wonder why.

Maybe some people are able to transcend the non importance of gear.

Like Film? Shoot film. But literally, noone gives a shit.

>>3130743
I have never seen one convicing argument about why film is so much better. I doubt any of you fucks have anything new to bring to the argument.

>>3130801
It looks better.

>>3130743
Soon

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversampled_binary_image_sensor

>>3130810
subjective

>>3130810
Wow so profound

Its just noisy. Noise gives a certain style to it. You can replicate that in post all day with digi. Only thing to it is that you will be called a pretentious hipster if you do so.

File: 665d548108f45450eade921a7a77ea61--soft-classic-classic-beauty.jpg (42KB, 506x640px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 506x640px

never

>>3130826
>>3130833
t. COCKED.

>>3130833
>Its just noisy.

Then explain how large format film still has that distinct film look despite having no visible grain?

>>3130743
>over exposing every shot because your medium cannot preserve shadows well is the only way to take proper pictures

lol

>>3130975
With digital it's the other way around.

Wow, flim is so good it can even mimic VSCO presets.

>>3130743
>When will digital cameras catch up to film?
when they want to look quaint and old fashioned

>>3130777
Improving Foveon sensors is also a possibility..

>>3130810
You could have listed
- pixel-level quantization as opposed to crystal-level quantization
- inherent loss of information by using half the green/red pixels on purpose
- even another chance of loss of information with non-perfect Bayer demosaicing algorithms (partially solved by Pentax's pixel shift)
- limited dynamic range leading to blown highlights
- sensor size/price ratio

but you had to be a fucking hipster retard and said "it looks better xD le lomography ftw". Fuck off.

>>3130989
half the blue/red pixels*
Fuck me

>>3130977
That was the point. OP said
>None of this shoot for highlights fix it in post Bullshit.

As if spending five seconds extra raising shadows in post is so hard. It's not like every scene even necessitates it. Hell, if people would actually bother to seek out pleasing light and not just snapshit away at whatever they find interesting regardless of the light, composition, or weather they wouldn't have to rely so heavily on medium itself to make their pictures look "good".

>>3130989
The only reason you're blowing highlights is because you suck at exposing properly. Git gud.

>sensor size price ratio
Would you rather spend $2k on full frame that lasts 10 years or spend thousands over a few years developing film? Especially if you shoot often.

>loss of information
Film's quality on 135 is not touching modern FF when it comes to sharpness or low light performance. In fact, nothing on film is touching digital's level of low light potential.

>>3130751
This has to be bait
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7139.0

my memory's hazy, but i believe carver mead and his students did some work on cmos sensors that saturate "nicely" with the artificial cochlea and retina projects which he covers in one of his books. something similar applied to digital camera sensor pixels might give greater overexposure tolerance?

>>3131053
You're right about those two, but I don't shoot film that often and I've got a mirrorless for snapshits anyway. It's not that digital is bad, it's that I was listing out some alternatives so retards like >>3130810 would shut the fuck up about muh feels.

>>3131053
>The only reason you're blowing highlights is because you suck at exposing properly.

>expose properly
>highlights not blown out
>rest of the image is almost pure black
>brightening the shadows results in heavy noise

>>3131172
seeing how fucking terrible it is and how pathetic Canon's ISO performance is with it, no wonder I'd never heard of it...

>>3131404
Learn to light scenes properly or use ambient lighting better. Stop relying on extremes in exposure latitude to carry crappy lighting in your photographs.

>>3130866
that's what i thought