8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant
Matt
film quality?
Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they
the equivalent to 35mm?
Lourens Smak
"Matt" <po...@newsgroup.com> wrote:
what 35mm are you referring to?
A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best
slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it?
Lourens
Mike Kohary
Huh? 35mm is a size - 35mm is 35mm. :) 6MP is considered approximately
equivalent, so 8MP probably exceeds 35mm in terms of resolution.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com
Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bill Hilton
>I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
>film quality?
A dSLR like the Canon 1D Mark II with 8 Mpixels and a large sensor seems to
produce better large prints for me than ASA 100 speed Provia 100 F or Velvia
scanned with a 4,000 dpi scanner. I'm getting 16x20" prints from the 1D that
are better than any prints that size I've gotten with even Velvia 50.
But 8 Mpix from a smaller sensor camera might give different results, so "it
depends" on where the 8 Mpixels came from and what kind of film you are using
for your comparison.
>Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution?
No, fine grained film still does better at resolving lines on test targets, yet
the digital prints look better ... how? Because of the lack of apparent grain.
Digital simply blows up better than film.
>Are they the equivalent to 35mm?
Download some Mark II sample images from the Canon site and resize them
carefully and print them to see for yourself, though these jpegs aren't as
smooth as RAW file conversions.
Here's a good summary by Roger Clark of the film vs digital debate. Others
give digital a wider edge, still others feel film is much better, but what he
describes is close to the majority viewpoint.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
Bill
Philip Fairman
data. Colour film can typically record information down to about 60lines
pairs/mm which comes out to 120 "pixels" per mm. The 8mp is really not
relevant. It's the CCD array pixel size. The Canon 20D (an 8 Mp camera) has
a pixel size of 6.5 microns. That equates to 156 "pixels" per mm. The
trouble is, they are not full frame. So you can use more "pixels" with film
to record the same picture. That's where digital are currently behind. The
Canon 20D array is only 62% (1.6X multiplier) of the width of a 35mm frame.
That basically means a equivalent "pixel" size of 97 "pixels" per mm. Still
way off film resolution. Noise is also an issue (as is dynamic range), but
most digital cameras over filter an image. Using a film scanner and a noise
reduction algorithm (as is applied in a digital camera), you can come pretty
close to the same noise floor. When digital goes full frame for non-pro
cameras, then digital will be ahead.
Phil Fairman
"Matt" <po...@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:cnj7km$o5a$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Gene Palmiter
> equivalent, so 8MP probably exceeds 35mm in terms of resolution.
The OP referred to print quality...you just brought up the idea of
resolution. Two different things.
Martin Francis
news:smak-502580.2...@news.wanadoo.nl...
My own film/digital comparisons hit an early snag when I couldn't find the
CF slot on my FM3a.
I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never
saw a single pixel...
What am I doing wrong?
--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."
Harvey
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:cnjckr$qgu$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> "Lourens Smak" <sm...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
> news:smak-502580.2...@news.wanadoo.nl...
>> In article <cnj7km$o5a$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>> "Matt" <po...@newsgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
>>> film quality?
>>>
>>> Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are
>>> they
>>> the equivalent to 35mm?
>>
>> what 35mm are you referring to?
>> A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best
>> slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it?
>>
>> Lourens
>
> My own film/digital comparisons hit an early snag when I couldn't find the
> CF slot on my FM3a.
>
> I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never
> saw a single pixel...
>
> What am I doing wrong?
>
Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
anything to go by.
DurangoLobo
>I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never
>saw a single pixel...
>
>What am I doing wrong?
Difficult to see anything when your head is wedged so far up your arse.
Trying pulling it out and looking again, this time at prints.
Lobo
Alan Browne
As digital has no 'grain' per se, they do produce very clean images up to about
15 x 10 (inches).
Film resolves higher than an 8 mpix sensor. However it is noisier than a
digital image. Decent prints up to about 24 x 16 are quite possible. I
recently finished some scans from Kodachrome 25 for a friend. Considering the
slow film and the shots are handheld, the detail is very good.
The scans are 7256 x 4880 ( 35 MPix) (so a print at 300 dpi will work out to
about 24x36) which is how he's ordering the prints for 3 of them. I'm sure an 8
Mpix would not do nearly as well... and if my friend had used a tripod, well...
Cheers,
Alan.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI gallery]: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- [SI rulz]: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Chris Brown
>
>35mm is a size - 35mm is 35mm. :) 6MP is considered approximately
>equivalent, so 8MP probably exceeds 35mm in terms of resolution.
Not slow slide film it doesn't, but image quality is about a lot more than
resolution.
Joseph Meehan
8MP. The quality of an image from a high quality camera vs a low quality
one will not be equal nor will images from the best 35mm film - camera
combination equal the quality of the worse. The ranges overlap. In
addition you are really talking apples and oranges so there can not be a
direct comparison.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
"Matt" <po...@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:cnj7km$o5a$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Gene Palmiter
> anything to go by.
Yep...as far as "being funny" he will have to get by on his looks.
>
>
>
Alan Browne
>
> Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
> anything to go by.
OTOH Martin is pretty accomplished photog which counts more around here...
三腳大俠
JPEG (not talking about RAW) produces by 1DM2 far far far better result than
a 8MP output from those "prosumer" DC like even Olympus 8080 or Canon Pro 1.
Take a few pictures with both sides and you'll know what I'm talking about.
And I don't think those "prosumer" produced better image than my Nikkor +
Fuji.
"Matt" <po...@newsgroup.com> 撰寫於郵件新聞:cnj7km$o5a$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Harvey
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:TQbnd.39842$De5.4...@wagner.videotron.net...
> Harvey wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
>> anything to go by.
>
> OTOH Martin is pretty accomplished photog which counts more around here...
>
http://www.btinternet.com/~mcsalty//martin/previews/misc/disabled.jpg ...
amazing.
paul
than the 8mp models even if it's fewer pixels. I'm not really qualified
to judge but it seems to me the pics are a bit fuzzy and do not compare
to the amazing detail of the 8MP digicams I saw. Another thing I was
told is that the metering sensors was way more advanced than the 8MP
prosumer cams and I guess I'm hoping it has a better dynamic range and
is basically more sensitive and responsive to difficult situations due
to the larger sensor. It cost $1000 for the body but then with a lense &
extra batteries, a 2g Microdrive that more than doubled the cost. I
think I was told that the raw files are more capable of being enlarged
than an 8MP though I don't know about that. Another consideration is
that the 8MP models are pushing the limit and they have some problems
like purple fringing on high contrast edges which is really very
annoying and noise level for night shots can be pretty bad for the 8MP
prosumer models. I've found that if I just barely get a bad picture in
tough lighting with this camera I can process it is photoshop to an
amazing degree because there is a lot less noise & the quality is there
to work with. This guy has a decent optical viewfinder like a 35mm &
it's super fast and light on battery usage so it's no problem to shoot
400 pics in a day-long excusion with room for another couple hundred
pics if something else came up.
Mike Kohary
He asked: "Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution?"
AnOver...@webtv.net
"Martin Francis" wrote:
My own film/digital comparisons hit an early snag when I couldn't find
the CF slot on my FM3a.
I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and
never saw a single pixel...
What am I doing wrong?
(Harvey) wrote
Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
anything to go by.
================================
I thought it was pretty funny.
Cody,
Mark˛
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yesnoyesnoyesnoyesno.....
There.
I just saved us all from an entire thread of a tired old argument!
Whew!!!
Yippeee!
AnOver...@webtv.net
(paul) wrote:
I got a Nikon d70 digital SLR 6MP on the basis that the sensor is larger
than the 8mp models even if it's fewer pixels. I'm not really qualified
to judge but it seems to me the pics are a bit fuzzy and do not compare
to the amazing detail of the 8MP digicams I saw.
Are you using the kit lens? Try using a better lens.
Cody,
Bill Hilton
>I got a Nikon d70 digital SLR 6MP on the basis that the sensor is larger
>than the 8mp models even if it's fewer pixels. I'm not really qualified
>to judge but it seems to me the pics are a bit fuzzy and do not compare
>to the amazing detail of the 8MP digicams I saw.
Run USM on the files ... Canon suggests 300%, .3 radius, 0 threshold to restore
the sharpness lost via the AA filter ... probably similar with Nikon.
Mark˛
"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.comedy> wrote in message
news:20041118232248...@mb-m27.aol.com...
That's interesting.
I have not heard of this recommendation, but that is just about exactly what
my typical settings are for general, quick sharpening jobs on my 10D
files....though I tend to set it only up around 220-250.
Bill Hilton
>>>
>>> it seems to me the pics are a bit fuzzy and do not compare
>>> to the amazing detail of the 8MP digicams I saw.
>> "Bill Hilton" wrote in message
>>
>> Run USM on the files ... Canon suggests 300%, .3 radius, 0 threshold
>> to restore the sharpness lost via the AA filter
>From: "Mark˛" mjmorgan(lowesteven number here)@cox..net
>
>That's interesting.
>I have not heard of this recommendation
It's from a 35 page PDF that Canon Tech guru Chuck Westfall made available a
couple of weeks ago, I put up a link to it on the digital NG about 10 days ago
... mostly tips on how to get the most from the 1D series ... the sharpening
tip was on pg 30 if you can find the download (it was on the Canon site).
Chris Loffredo
It's like saying that playing a Mp3 file on a portable device is the
same as listening to the original high quality recording on a high-end
stereo: The basic measurements are the same (frequency response, s/n
ratio), but does it sound the same?
Some people might not notice any difference, especially if they only
listen to electronic or synthesized nusic.
Others will hear a great difference, and consider the Mp3 as the audio
equivalent of eating rancid butter.
So it all comes down to your needs, perceptions and tastes.
@nz D.R.
"Chris Loffredo" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:305pclF...@uni-berlin.de...
Yeah just like M$ saying that recording at 64kbps with their WMA v8 codec was
"near CD quality". LOL.
Variable bitrate 192kbps+ MP3 maybe, but anything less sounds light crap to my
ears. Especially highhats.
There are some that say even though digital sensors are recording more and more
detail these days, they record it different to film.
Someone on this ng recently said that to do massive enlargements film is still
the way to go.
@nz D.R.
"Harvey" <har...@not.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nMcnd.191$3w3...@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...
Nice try harvey. Looking at the other photos on his website, there are some
really nice photos there. Although some not so amazing.
THIS*@deslab.ntua.gr Dps
is 20Mp, I am not sure though...
"Matt" <po...@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
news:cnj7km$o5a$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Stephen Maudsley
> > I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
> > film quality?
> >
> > Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are
they
> > the equivalent to 35mm?
> >
> >
>
> It's like saying that playing a Mp3 file on a portable device is the
> same as listening to the original high quality recording on a high-end
> stereo: The basic measurements are the same (frequency response, s/n
> ratio), but does it sound the same?
Basic measurements aren't the same. However the differences are small enough
not to be noticed much of the time. That's why it sounds different.
Joseph Meehan
news:bGind.3727$9A.1...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
...
>
> Someone on this ng recently said that to do massive enlargements film is
> still
> the way to go.
>
>
I would say large format film is the way to go. :-)
Owamanga
THIS*@deslab.ntua.gr> wrote:
>I scan 35mm at 40+ Mp. But I think the equivalent in terms of ISO100 grain
>is 20Mp, I am not sure though...
>
Iv'e done the same. But now reduce the resolution until you can't see
the grain any more. What size image do you have?
This is a question with a hundred answers.
--
Owamanga!
Magnus W
news:20041118175528...@mb-m24.aol.com:
> A dSLR like the Canon 1D Mark II with 8 Mpixels and a large sensor
> seems to produce better large prints for me than ASA 100 speed Provia
> 100 F or Velvia scanned with a 4,000 dpi scanner.
And how is it compared to cibas?
THIS*@deslab.ntua.gr Dps
> Iv'e done the same. But now reduce the resolution until you can't see
> the grain any more. What size image do you have?
The same applies to any digital image
>
> This is a question with a hundred answers.
>
... and comes in a thousand flavors also ;-)
-- dimitris
David J. Littleboy
"Owamanga" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Dps" <servis*REMOVE THIS*@deslab.ntua.gr> wrote:
>
> >I scan 35mm at 40+ Mp. But I think the equivalent in terms of ISO100
grain
> >is 20Mp, I am not sure though...
>
> Iv'e done the same. But now reduce the resolution until you can't see
> the grain any more. What size image do you have?
Rather than reducing the resolution, you should hit the scan with NeatImage
or Noise Ninja.
Then you can compare the detail to what you see in digital capture by either
downsampling the film or upsampling the digital.
To my eye, high-res scans are _much_ softer (i.e. less rich in detail) than
digital originals on a per-pixel basis*. But scans have a lot of pixels. I
don't see significant loss of pictorial detail when I downsample 4000 dpi
scans to 2400 dpi or so, so that puts 24x36 as very close to 8MP. (Note that
this is pretty much the same as saying that film has very little useful
information above 30 lp/mm, and none above 45 lp/mm<g>.)
*: Check here for a lot of examples of what real scans actually look like
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
> This is a question with a hundred answers.
Well, there's already a fairly reasonable consensus** that 6MP is about 80%
of 4000 dpi scanned Provia 100F, so that puts 8MP at quite close. 5400 dpi
scanned Reala might do a tad better (after NeatImage, of course).
**: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Alan Browne
One phot of an essay... you can find just as ordinary phots in Nat Geo.
Of course we'd love to see your genius in action...
Alan Browne
USM should be run per the image detail to define edges without creating
artifacts. There is no "one setting" that works for all varieties of images,
subjects, lighting and so on.
Cheers,
Alan
Annika1980
>I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and
>never saw a single pixel...
Bet you saw grain out the ass, though.
Dave Martindale
>> Someone on this ng recently said that to do massive enlargements film is
>> still the way to go.
> I would say large format film is the way to go. :-)
I'd say that large format is the way to go.
Small-format film has resolution limits just like small-format digital;
neither will give you huge enlargements. Large-format film *or digital*
will do huge enlargements.
Currently, large-format digital is a lot more expensive, and has
operating restrictions compared to large-format film, but resolution is
available.
Dave
MXP
film. Then try
to calculate an equavialent min. no. of pixels on 24x36 to achicve 200
lp/mm. I guess you will need at
least 400 pixels/mm.
Max
"Matt" <po...@newsgroup.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:cnj7km$o5a$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Martin Francis
>I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
> film quality?
>
> Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they
> the equivalent to 35mm?
Really, really difficult area- comparing film to digital inevitably means
scanning film, by which point it is really a comparison of digital capture
media. IME, desktop film scanners are largely terrible.
Digital is in a league of it's own. Not to say a better or worse league,
just different. Sadly, the way it's going, the digital league is seemingly
more comparable (numbers-wise) to the NFL, compared to film's World
Tiddlywinks Championship.
--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."
Lourens Smak
wrote:
> Huh? 35mm is a size - 35mm is 35mm. :) 6MP is considered approximately
> equivalent, so 8MP probably exceeds 35mm in terms of resolution.
Well, the actual resolution would depend a LOT on the lens used, for
example. (with both images). 35mm = 6MP is very simplistic.
Lourens
Owamanga
wrote:
I've calculated it to be exactly 7.445239 Mpixels but my methods are
secret. Not many people expected this because it turns out to be an
odd number.
--
Owamanga!
Martin Francis
news:Xibnd.6301$%M4.3147@trndny08...
>> Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
>> anything to go by.
>
>
Awww, shit....
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/22959641
Martin Francis
> news:TQbnd.39842$De5.4...@wagner.videotron.net...
>> Harvey wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> anything to go by.
>>
>> here...
>>
>
> http://www.btinternet.com/~mcsalty//martin/previews/misc/disabled.jpg ...
Cheers. And thanks for searching through all of my sites to find it, but i'm
curious; of all those shots, why choose this sample?
Martin Francis
news:20041119110900...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Sure. Grain is what makes up photographs on film.
Did I mention I have a D100 now?
Martin Francis
news:20041118190411...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >From: "Martin Francis" mcs...@com.btinternet
>>
>>I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never
>>saw a single pixel...
>>
>
> Difficult to see anything when your head is wedged so far up your arse.
>
> Trying pulling it out and looking again, this time at prints.
>
> Lobo
Huh?
Okay, i'll have a look at a Cibachrome print from a 35mm slide under a
loupe, and count the pixels. I'm sure having shoehorned my head from my
backside will help.
FWIW, I'd rather take pictures than argue which is better. I am now
well-placed to choose between formats, as I am building a Nikon film/digital
outfit, and I will endeavour to take more photos than I have of late.
Matt
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:cnli4k$grk$4...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Carl
Carl
> "Matt" <po...@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:cnj7km$o5a$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>>I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
>>film quality?
>>
>>Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they
>>the equivalent to 35mm?
>
>
> Really, really difficult area- comparing film to digital inevitably means
> scanning film, by which point it is really a comparison of digital capture
> media. IME, desktop film scanners are largely terrible.
>
> Digital is in a league of it's own. Not to say a better or worse league,
> just different. Sadly, the way it's going, the digital league is seemingly
> more comparable (numbers-wise) to the NFL, compared to film's World
> Tiddlywinks Championship.
>
sure how you compare. Film is not necessarily displayed at its best when
scanned and subsequently viewed on screen. Digital is not necessarily
displayed at it's absolute best when printed using inkjet technology,
for example.
Therein lies the quandary. What is needed is a common point of contact
where either there is an equal degree of compromise for the two media,
or a point of contact where neither needs to compromise (unlikely).
Alternatively we could all stop bitching about whose media is better
than whose and just accept they are different, and love them for their
differences. Then maybe we could get past the endless cycle of the same
threads appearing every few weeks.
Alan Browne
> I've calculated it to be exactly 7.445239 Mpixels but my methods are
> secret. Not many people expected this because it turns out to be an
> odd number.
It's odd alright.
Stephen H. Westin
> In the old Kodachrome 25 days it was possible to put down 200 lp/mm
> on the film.
When did those days end? The Kodachrome data sheet as of December,
2000 had Kodachrome 25 Professional (PKM) down to 10% MTF at 70
cycles/mm. Presumably rather lower than that at 200. Assuming, of
course, that you could produce 200 cycles at the image plane, which
isn't at all easy. Ever notice that the highest frequency on lens MTF
charts seems to be 40 cycles?
<snip>
--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.
Stephen H. Westin
Stephen H. Westin
> "Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20041119110900...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> > >"Martin Francis" wrote:
> >
> >>I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and
> >>never saw a single pixel...
> >
> > Bet you saw grain out the ass, though.
>
> Sure. Grain is what makes up photographs on film.
Right. When did you see a pixel in a digital image? You may have seen
artifacts from deficient resampling, but a pixel is not a little
square. See
<http://www.alvyray.com/Memos/MemosMicrosoft.htm#PixelIsNotSquare>.
MXP
calculated
lp/mm was calculated. I got the information that kodachrome 25 should be
able to resolve
250 lp/mm .....from a person which normally gives reliable information :-)
(not seen it on paper).
Equipment used was an OM-4 with a selected 50/1.8 (a "lucky" one....out of
many).
What does Fuji say about Velvia 100F?
Max
"Stephen H. Westin" <westin*nos...@graphics.cornell.edu> skrev i en
meddelelse news:s04qjly...@diesel.graphics.cornell.edu...
Stephen H. Westin
> I have not done it ....but have looked at some slides in microscope where a
> calculated
> lp/mm was calculated. I got the information that kodachrome 25 should be
> able to resolve
> 250 lp/mm .....from a person which normally gives reliable information :-)
> (not seen it on paper).
> Equipment used was an OM-4 with a selected 50/1.8 (a "lucky" one....out of
> many).
>
> What does Fuji say about Velvia 100F?
Well, Velvia RVP (ISO 50) seems to be a bit over 30% at 70 cycles.
But find out for yourself at
<http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductsFilm.jsp>.
For Kodak, <http://www.kodak.com/go/portra>,
<http://www.kodak.com/go/ektachrome>, etc.
williamlondon
> I scan 35mm at 40+ Mp. But I think the equivalent in terms of ISO100 grain
> is 20Mp, I am not sure though...
>
>
> news:cnj7km$o5a$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
> > film quality?
> >
> > Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they
> > the equivalent to 35mm?
> >
>
the music is stepped, and so with b/w film photos there are infinite
shades of grey which no amount of easy-to-store digital can carry,
even if it appears to be there! And darkroom dodging never looks
anything like as dodgy as photoshop dodging, imho!
Sander Vesik
[follow-ups set]
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Matt <po...@newsgroup.com> wrote:
> I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
> film quality?
This would imply that you when dooing stright scans, you don't need
resolutions above 2700dpi or so - which is not true. Plenty of detail
remains unseen at that level.
>
> Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they
> the equivalent to 35mm?
>
Neither.
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Steve Evans
They can't be disproved that way.
--
Fat, sugar, salt, beer: the four essentials for a healthy diet.
@nz D.R.
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:cnli4k$grk$4...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> > http://www.btinternet.com/~mcsalty//martin/previews/misc/disabled.jpg ...
> > amazing.
>
> Cheers. And thanks for searching through all of my sites to find it, but i'm
> curious; of all those shots, why choose this sample?
Because he was just being a prick. Nothing more, nothing less.
Jeremy
> film quality?
>
Kodak, on one of their web pages, has indicated that 24MP is equivalent to
the potential of 35mm film.
This is just in theory. I have a 2.3 MP digicam that produces very fine
images, when printed by OFOTO.
It is all relative.
Chris Loffredo
> Chris,
> I like your comparison, right to the point. May I use it as mine?
>
: )
Be my guest!
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:32:32 +0100, Chris Loffredo <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
> *Matt wrote:
> *> I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
> *> film quality?
> *>
> *> Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they
> *> the equivalent to 35mm?
> *>
> *>
> *
> *It's like saying that playing a Mp3 file on a portable device is the
> *same as listening to the original high quality recording on a high-end
> *stereo: The basic measurements are the same (frequency response, s/n
> *ratio), but does it sound the same?
> *
> *Some people might not notice any difference, especially if they only
> *listen to electronic or synthesized nusic.
> *Others will hear a great difference, and consider the Mp3 as the audio
> *equivalent of eating rancid butter.
> *
> *So it all comes down to your needs, perceptions and tastes.
>
Steve Evans
wrote:
>
>"Matt" <po...@newsgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:cnj7km$o5a$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
>> film quality?
>>
>
>Kodak, on one of their web pages, has indicated that 24MP is equivalent to
>the potential of 35mm film.
LOL! Given a typical Kodak camera and Kodak colour print film, any
half-decent 2MP digicam ought to beat it.
Bob Monaghan
quoting Popular Photography, March 2001, page 55:
from our own tests, a tripod mounted, high end SLR with a superb lens and
ISO 100 color print film can capture the equivalent of a 40 megapixel
sensor...
kodak's estimate for mid-speed film is "at least 24 megapixels" equivalent
AFIPS peer reviewed scientific paper:
35mm fast film (ISO 400 and up) =~ 22 megapixel equiv.
35mm medium speed film (ISO 100 to 200) = 54 megapixel equiv.
35mm slow speed film (circa ISO 25-80) =~ 125 megapixel equiv.
NASA's Roger Clark's Scanned velvia 35mm ~ 14.4 Megapixels
==============
in other words, the scanning process loses much of the higher frequency
and higher resolution data, dumbing down film hugely. So if you think
mid-speed 35mm films (ISO 100-ish) are only 6 MP equiv., then you have
lost 48 MP of data (AFIPS 54MP - 6 MP=48) or "at least" 18 MP of data
(Kodak est. of 24 MP - 6 MP) or 34 MP of data (Pop Photo real world tests
of 40 MP - 6 MP = 34 MP) - somewhere around 75-90% of the information and
high resolution data in film. This seems to be partly a Nyquist limitation
of the scanner sensor and optics subsystem.
in short, film (with submicron "sensor" grains) has a huge advantage in
resolution over digital sensors (with sensor sites 3+ microns in size
squared to 10+ microns-square areas, vs. under 1 micron square area film
grains). Film emulsions can also be vertically stacked (as in color film),
further enhancing density and color resolution, etc. Finally, film is
cheap to make in larger formats (medium format, LF etc.) making it easy to
get even larger resolution factors, unlike silicon sensor production....
my $.02 ;-) bobm
--
***********************************************************************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Bob Monaghan
could be kodak ektar 25 color film, reaching 200 lpmm per Zeiss tests,
see:
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/allBySubject/6F2949A15BD8DB74C1256CEF002B0246
same tests rated fuji velvia at 160 lpmm and tmax 100 at 180 lpmm in real
world tests with actual zeiss lenses and regular photo lab processing etc.
this is quite a difference between 30 and 40 cycles(lpmm) and 160 or 180
lpmm? ;-)
grins bobm
Mark˛
"Bob Monaghan" <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote in message
news:cno596$p5h$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu...
>
> quoting Popular Photography, March 2001, page 55:
> from our own tests, a tripod mounted, high end SLR with a superb lens and
> ISO 100 color print film can capture the equivalent of a 40 megapixel
> sensor...
Popular photography should never be taken more seriously than the catalogue
that it is.
ThomasH
>
[...]
>
> Here's a good summary by Roger Clark of the film vs digital debate. Others
> give digital a wider edge, still others feel film is much better, but what he
> describes is close to the majority viewpoint.
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
>
> Bill
This is an excellent paper, but I have doubts regarding his
analysis of the dynamic range. The writer believes to have
tested/proven (?) that the dynamic range range of paper prints
is higher than the of the slide material. He writes:
[...
The slide film records only about 5 photographic stops
of information (a stop is a factor of 2, so 5 stops is 32).
The print film shows about 7 stops of information.
...]
I always believed that the dynamic range of even best
print matter is around 3, its even rather like 2.7, and
the best of slide materials have a range of 4 (attested
by Wolf Faust, who makes the IT8 targets). Cnsequently,
film scanner needs to support 14 or 16bit AD converter
to provide the entire dynamic range of slide material.
Why Clark concludes so differently?
Thomas
Bob Monaghan
Pop Photo & Imaging has one of the better photo gear test labs in the USA,
complete with full time trained and degreed technical staff, a total lab
investment that is over a half million US$ and able to measure many
parameters and factors with high precision. I would give them more
credence than a casual user on USENET "testing" his or her scanner without
even aligning the scanner first etc. ;-)
Similarly, given that Pop Photo & Imaging is heavily devoted to (pro)
digital camera and system reviews and articles, and gets a major fraction
of their revenue from digital imaging related ad sales, the fact that they
are rating film at 40 MP (100 ISO) is a "statement against (self-)
interest", as the legal types would put it, and therefore more to be
believed than if they had rated film at 6 MP, as many here want to do so.
It makes their many digital camera readers unhappy, esp. since it is an
actual real world photo test.
The Zeiss lens and film tests I also cited in a related post are similar;
they are also real world photo tests of film and lens, using standard
photo lab processing and otherwise should be within the capacity of
careful photographers using similar lenses, film, and techniques. When you
use such factors of 160 lpmm or 180 lpmm in your calculations for equiv.
pixel values, you get quite stellar megapixel equivalents too ;-)
Digital photography has won the battle against film (at low end, anyway),
as users prefer convenience over resolution, and I'd bet that
95% of all digital still photos in five years will be taken by camera
cell-phones at relatively modest megapixel levels. But technically, film
has higher potential resolution, if at a higher cost and lower convenience
factor ;-)
regards bobm
Jeremy
>
>
> Digital photography has won the battle against film (at low end, anyway),
> as users prefer convenience over resolution
>
The distinguished Erwin Puts stated it thusly:
"Once in the digital area, there is no reason to cling to analogue media or
to allow one self to have the option of choosing the best medium for the
job. The image quality of the current digital technology is as good as that
what you get from analogue media. There are hundreds of sites in the
internet who try to prove with examples and/or calculations and/or technical
reasoning that digital is superior/inferior to analogue (pick your choice).
The plain fact remains that users vote with their feet and that is digital!
And for 95% of demands and expectations a 5 Megapixel camera with a decent
lens will satisfy even professional demands. Remember that a few years ago
the first Canon D1 digital camera had 1.2 Megapixels and most professionals
were impressed. Even Berek calculated that 1 million pixels would be enough
for serious small format images! And the current Nikon H2 with 3 million
pixels is accepted as a tool for professional results. Filmbased users like
myself, can argue and prove that the immaculate barita print with slow speed
film and Leica lenses will have the edge over digital results, but that 95%
of photographers will shrug their shoulders and ask: who needs this quality
and who wants to input this amount of effort? And they will point to the
ease of use, the immediacy of the results and the simple way of distributing
the image. In filmbased photography the result is a unique product (the
print) that needs to be seen in a museum or exhibition. In digital
photography the result needs to distributed instantly as it will loose its
impact when there is a long time lag. Filmbased photography will not
co-exist with digital photography, but will be forced into a niche as vinyl
(LP) records compared to CD or DVD music records.
In a recent article in The Economist (03-01-2004) the magazine analyzed the
future of Kodak and concluded that this is not a bright one. As long as
Kodak is still hooked on film, there is no way to adapt to the new business
model, required to adapt to the rapid technological change. What is true for
Kodak, is also true for Leica. The highest growth rates in digital cameras
can be found in companies with a nontraditional background in photography.
HP grew by 113% in Q3-2003. But in market share it is Sony, Canon and Kodak
who are at the top three positions."
(http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c002.html)
The one sentence that struck me most was, "Filmbased users like myself, can
argue and prove that the immaculate barita print with slow speed film and
Leica lenses will have the edge over digital results, but that 95% of
photographers will shrug their shoulders and ask: who needs this quality and
who wants to input this amount of effort?"
Mark˛
>
> Pop Photo & Imaging has one of the better photo gear test labs in the USA,
> complete with full time trained and degreed technical staff, a total lab
> investment that is over a half million US$ and able to measure many
> parameters and factors with high precision. I would give them more
> credence than a casual user on USENET "testing" his or her scanner without
> even aligning the scanner first etc. ;-)
>
> Similarly, given that Pop Photo & Imaging is heavily devoted to (pro)
> digital camera and system reviews and articles, and gets a major fraction
> of their revenue from digital imaging related ad sales, the fact that they
> are rating film at 40 MP (100 ISO) is a "statement against (self-)
> interest", as the legal types would put it, and therefore more to be
> believed than if they had rated film at 6 MP, as many here want to do so.
> It makes their many digital camera readers unhappy, esp. since it is an
> actual real world photo test.
To the contrary, it is in their interest to promote the continuation of the
clamour for ever higher pixel counts, and therefore ever more
competition...leading to ever more advertiizements on their pages as
manufacturers navigate toward what the public currently (underline
*currently*) sees as the holy grail of resolution, etc.
They also are trying to keep their die-hard film-using readers happily
brown-nozed, and clinging to their magazine as "proof" they are not yet
marginalized.
If Pop Photo really wants to win respect, they won't do it with their nifty
"test labs"...
...they'll do it by stopping their incredible disrespect of their their
readers by refusing to run ads from shops they KNOW are crooks. They have
become partners in crime, and should be shamefully ignored as illegitimate
until they reform this.
Gordon Moat
> "Bob Monaghan" <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote in message
> news:cno94t$qie$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu...
> >
> >
> > Digital photography has won the battle against film (at low end, anyway),
> > as users prefer convenience over resolution
> >
>
> The distinguished Erwin Puts stated it thusly:
>
> "Once in the digital area, there is no reason to cling to analogue media or
> to allow one self to have the option of choosing the best medium for the
> job. The image quality of the current digital technology is as good as that
> what you get from analogue media. There are hundreds of sites in the
> internet who try to prove with examples and/or calculations and/or technical
> reasoning that digital is superior/inferior to analogue (pick your choice)..
> . . . . . . . . . . (http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c002.html)
>
> The one sentence that struck me most was, "Filmbased users like myself, can
> argue and prove that the immaculate barita print with slow speed film and
> Leica lenses will have the edge over digital results, but that 95% of
> photographers will shrug their shoulders and ask: who needs this quality and
> who wants to input this amount of effort?"
Excellent posting. I recall the Erwin wrote an article in LFI last year testing
new Fuji Astia 100 and new Kodak E100GX films. With his real world imaging, he
got around 90 to 100 lp/mm. Indeed, how many people tie there 35 mm camera onto
a tripod, and how many will even get close to that. Of course, hand held direct
digital image capture will also loose resolution.
The problem we are now facing is that marketing types pushed the idea of
resolution comparison, in the form of MegaPixels, and it is now common public
quantitative information. Many of us know that a fixed lens CoolPix (for
example) with about 8 MP will not produce as good an image as a digital SLR
with about 8 MP, and in some cases not as good an image as some circa 6 MP
direct digital SLRs. I think the more knowledgeable enthusiasts know this, and
are moving away from pure MP comparisons and arguments.
Resolution is only one small aspect of image quality. There is also colour
quality to consider, and even then our chosen methods of printing can alter the
end results, even when originated from the same source image. Anyone who has
done this long enough knows that what we see on an LCD or computer monitor
often looks quite different from the final print. Even chemical prints can vary
from the film, or just from different labs.
To go by what Bob M. mentions about pixel sizes compared to film grain molecule
sizes, the film grains are indeed much smaller in the vast majority of films.
They are also more random in distribution, and somewhat overlapping in colour
films. The optimum for CCD and CMOS sensors is around 6 ľm to 8 ľm pixel sizes.
Larger produce more noise, while smaller become less sensitive to light. Almost
all films are under 3 ľm.
There are drum scanners that can image down to nearly 3 ľm, but they are rarely
used. Regardless of that, a more important consideration should be printed
output. Disregard dpi, or claimed dpi, and the reality is that even the best of
the latest commercial printing techniques is 7 ľm to 40 ľm on average. Inkjet
systems do not fare as well, due to higher dot gain. The result is that even
the best scanning and printing techniques will not get all that is possible
with film, even very good film.
Chemical printing film is another choice, and then the enlargement factor comes
into play. Add in the system of enlarging, the paper, light source, and even
the imaging method, and more reduction of that film information occurs. Where
the advantage, as Erwin implied, is that the random nature of placement of tone
on a chemical print can seem to be a different, and subjectively better,
quality that other printing methods.
When we consider that we will print our best images, then we realize that the
very latest of direct digital can meet many of our quality needs. Going the
extra step will only result in a slight improvement in resolution, and might
not be noticeable to most viewers. So we are left with a situation of those who
value that resolution wondering why they should bother with film.
I suggest that colour quality, or tonal quality for B/W users, become the value
choice for those who want to use film. We know that several ISO 100 colour
transparency films (for example) will result in several different final images
of a chosen scene. The same can be stated for the variety of B/W films, all
which give slightly different results. These choices and results make film a
creative choice, and that choice should be the reason some of us still want to
use film.
I have worked with digital images, PhotoShop (since version 2.0), and other
image editors for many years, so I understand that some like the alterations
that can be done to images in a computer. To those that value that more than
chemical prints, I hope they understand the creative choices others will make.
Film and direct digital are complementary technologies; one is mature and well
evolved, while the other is rapidly changing and cutting edge; we should take
advantage of each when we can.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
MXP
Funny the Ektar 25 has much higher resolution than Kodachrome 25.
Max
"Bob Monaghan" <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> skrev i en meddelelse
news:cno5mk$pau$1...@blaze.seas.smu.edu...
KBob
>I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
>film quality?
>
>Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they
>the equivalent to 35mm?
>
Certainly 8 Mp could beat the pants off of 35mm film, if it was 8 Mpx
in a high-end pro camera with a critically fine lens. However, this
simply isn't the case when we speak of "8 Mpx cameras." For that
matter, the D100, D70 etc. easily beat film, but you will be
disappointed with the dinky-sensored consumer cameras that tout 8 Mpx,
since a large portion of their resolution is lost due to bleedover and
other anomalies associated with the tiny sensor size.
John Miller
> Certainly 8 Mp could beat the pants off of 35mm film, if it was 8 Mpx
> in a high-end pro camera with a critically fine lens. However, this
> simply isn't the case when we speak of "8 Mpx cameras." For that
> matter, the D100, D70 etc. easily beat film, but you will be
> disappointed with the dinky-sensored consumer cameras that tout 8 Mpx,
> since a large portion of their resolution is lost due to bleedover and
> other anomalies associated with the tiny sensor size.
Here's a question from another angle (and if it's been thrashed out
before, my apologies): Given a full-frame (24mm x 36mm) sensor, how many
Mpx are required to take full advantage of today's best lenses? Being
retired and now using my gear for pleasure, not for income, I'm kind of
holding out for ~12 Mpx, but that's really just a S.W.A.G. What are the
facts?
--
John Miller
email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm
Surplus (FSoT):
New Conn V1 double trumpet case, no logo
Tektronix 465B oscilloscope
Like-new Nikon n80 body
J...@no.komm
John Miller <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>Here's a question from another angle (and if it's been thrashed out
>before, my apologies): Given a full-frame (24mm x 36mm) sensor, how many
>Mpx are required to take full advantage of today's best lenses? Being
>retired and now using my gear for pleasure, not for income, I'm kind of
>holding out for ~12 Mpx, but that's really just a S.W.A.G. What are the
>facts?
Well, with the sharpest lens I own, the Tamron 9mm f/2.8 Di macro, I can
resolve as well (obviously with slightly lower pixel-level contrast)
with my Canon 20D, with a 2x TC, as I can without it (MTF curves limited
by sensor, not lens). Doing the math for full frame,
(1.6^2)*(2^2)*8.2MP = 84MP. That is, an 84MP full-frame sensor of the
same quality scaled down would resolve as least as good without the
teleconverter as the 20D does with it, in the center crop.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Colin D
ThomasH wrote:
A minor correction, Thomas, the quote says 'print film', not paper. Print film
does indeed have a wider range than slide film, but of course that range is
considerably compressed when printed.
Colin
Duncan J Murray
information that 35mm film has, but that isn't to say 24MP file from a film
scan is the same as 24MP image from a 24MP array of CCDS, where there is
more information per pixel. For a demonstration of this, see the link I
have put at the end..
A direct comparison is going to be difficult to be possible due to
incongruence of grain and pixel. So I ask the question the other way
round...
*What is the equivalent film size (i.e. aps, 35mm, 120?) for a 12MP image
from a canon DSLR?*
Wouldn't be surprised if it were large format...
Duncan.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
...Go right down to the bottom where 10D is compared to 35mm. You probably
need to load into Photoshop to compare. Notice that the 35mm scan is a
larger image - it certainly contains more detail, and yet, the 10D image
appears to be more economical with pixels, presumably because the image in
the first place was designed for a pixelated world... It's also interesting
to note the decreased noise in the 10D image (due to noise reduction, I am
sure) and the apparently better white balance. Overall a cleaner look, but
not one is therefore more accurate.
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.thanks.com> wrote in message
news:XgCnd.4344$Qh3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Donald Brummel
film/slide
scanners?
A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per
negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice
5x7.
The 4800 dpi scanners will let you print a nice 14x20. When 9600 DPI
scanners arrive, the prints you can get from a negative/slide will be almost
life size. Why? Because the resolution stored in a sharp photo is
incredible,
and good scanners are able to capture more and more of it.
A 4800 DPI Scanner gets you about 128Mb per shot. Any 128Mb
Digital cameras out there? Forget about 512Mb cameras (which
would be needed to keep up with 9600 DPI scanners).
Even high end digital cameras (within reach of most of use) are still
stretching it to put out a good 8x10. When Digital cameras, if ever,
produce more resolution than the best available 35mm scanner, then
perhaps the tide will have turned. We are a long way from that day.
Regards,
Beau
"KBob" <KB...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:v9fvp0tcfqo6mrdds...@4ax.com...
J...@no.komm
J...@no.komm wrote:
>In message <cnofhp$645$2...@n4vu2.n4vu.com>,
>John Miller <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>Here's a question from another angle (and if it's been thrashed out
>>before, my apologies): Given a full-frame (24mm x 36mm) sensor, how many
>>Mpx are required to take full advantage of today's best lenses? Being
>>retired and now using my gear for pleasure, not for income, I'm kind of
>>holding out for ~12 Mpx, but that's really just a S.W.A.G. What are the
>>facts?
>
>Well, with the sharpest lens I own, the Tamron 9mm f/2.8 Di macro, I can
>resolve as well (obviously with slightly lower pixel-level contrast)
>with my Canon 20D, with a 2x TC, as I can without it (MTF curves limited
>by sensor, not lens). Doing the math for full frame,
>(1.6^2)*(2^2)*8.2MP = 84MP. That is, an 84MP full-frame sensor of the
>same quality scaled down would resolve as least as good without the
>teleconverter as the 20D does with it, in the center crop.
Here's a sample; this is on the 20D with the 90mm Tamron Macro and the
Tamron SP 2x TC. This is a pixel-for-pixel view (AKA "100% crop"); the
full image would be 30 to 40 inches wide on a typical monitor:
http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/36586492
Harvey
"Donald Brummel" <naclh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:QZSnd.7347$pK6....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi
> film/slide
> scanners?
>
> A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per
> negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice
> 5x7.
28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give
something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix
Crownfield
you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000.
some people think image quality is measured by file size.
Petros
And a tif would be 25.03 MB at that size and would print 11.67"x8.33" @
300 dpi for offset. I wouldn't want to tell a customer that I can print
a 35mm picture any bigger than that using offset.
I would get lynched when they saw the effect ;)
--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos
Annika1980
>The 4800 dpi scanners will let you print a nice 14x20. When 9600 DPI
>scanners arrive, the prints you can get from a negative/slide will be almost
>life size. Why? Because the resolution stored in a sharp photo is
>incredible,
>and good scanners are able to capture more and more of it.
>
>A 4800 DPI Scanner gets you about 128Mb per shot. Any 128Mb
>Digital cameras out there? Forget about 512Mb cameras (which
>would be needed to keep up with 9600 DPI scanners).
Wrong.
A 35mm frame only contains "X" amount of detail and increasing the resolution
of the scanner isn't going to help you retrieve more information than is there.
From my tests it appears that 5400dpi is probably overkill. You won't see any
9600 dpi 35mm scanners hit the market anytime soon because they wouldn't do any
better.
You just get bigger grain.
>Even high end digital cameras (within reach of most of use) are still
>stretching it to put out a good 8x10. When Digital cameras, if ever,
>produce more resolution than the best available 35mm scanner, then
>perhaps the tide will have turned. We are a long way from that day.
In what year was this post written? It sure couldn't have been in the past 3
or 4.
Let's put it this way. I get better prints from my 20D than any 35mm film
camera, even my fabulous EOS-1V.
Skip M
news:41A005...@cox.net...
In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it
produces a 24 meg JPEG file...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Petros
Harvey
"Petros" <retepe...@safenet.pl> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c0a9d6a4...@news.individual.de...
Larry
says...
8 megapixel vs 35MM?
I didn't know there had to be a competition.
I use an 8mp digital all the time and can say this with confidence:
Is it handier? YES
Is it easier? after the initial learning curve YES
Does it match 35mm resolution? NO
For the work I do, digital (with a GOOD P&S) is better because I dont need to
hassle with changing filters or changing film when the light changes, and the
ZLR I use has enough range that I dont feel the need to change lenses. So I
get to take the following out of my camera bag:
6 filters
4 lenses
several boxes of film
and replace them with
1. a card to use with manual white balance
2. memory
3. spare battery(ies)
Perhaps if the 2/3 sensor in my camera was LARGER I could come close, but if
I want something bigger than 11x14" in my prints I would still lean toward
35mm (with good film, which is getting harder and harder to find on the
shelf, by the way).
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Skip M
You're right, it's a 20.8, I was misremembering, I thought the last ones I
worked on were 23.8. As far as a RAW file, it is much larger.
Skip M
"Larry" <lasting...@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c0a65358...@news.comcast.giganews.com...
You may be able to say it with confidence, but your equipment's limitations
curtail its veracity, as you note in your last paragraph.
Some digital equipment at 8mp, for one reason or another, won't equal the
best of film. Some will, and in some uses, possibly exceed it. I get
better 16x20 images from my 20D than I did from my 1n with Ilford XP-2, a
400 ISO film. Will I get better 16x20s than from Ektar 25? I don't know,
since I can't make that comparison.
Petros
need a 250 MB tif source file. Not even the 20D is capable of that. It
would be about 12,000 x 8,000 pixels, or 96 megapixels.
Larry
> You may be able to say it with confidence, but your equipment's limitations
> curtail its veracity, as you note in your last paragraph.
> Some digital equipment at 8mp, for one reason or another, won't equal the
> best of film. Some will, and in some uses, possibly exceed it. I get
> better 16x20 images from my 20D than I did from my 1n with Ilford XP-2, a
> 400 ISO film. Will I get better 16x20s than from Ektar 25? I don't know,
> since I can't make that comparison.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
>
Near as I can tell, we "kind of" agree.
The point I was trying (rather poorly I guess) is that we CAN use both
digital & film, without being some kind of "traitor to the cause".
Im sure there are Digital Cameras around that are better than mine, I've SEEN
THEM. (I've even USED a couple) They just aren't suited to my budget and my
work. So in place of them I use FILM when I need better than my digitals can
do.
I COULD have bought the Digital Rebel instead of the Sony F 828 (the Canon
was actually cheaper with the kit lens) BUT the one and only time I used one,
I had dust contamination problems because of the environment in which I tend
to shoot.
Bigger Sensor? YES
Better Picture YES even with fewer pixels.
Did I get MORE of those BETTER pictures? NO!
I had to suspend use of the Rebel because it was getting contaminated with
dust (on the sensor), and my subjects couldn't wait while I cleaned it. So
for that day I simply used FILM...(I never did remove the lens before the
dust problem, so I dont know HOW the dust was getting in, and not owning the
camera kept me from finding/curing the problem)
Perhaps my feelings are based on a difference in philosophy.. I got into
DIGITAL for its flexibility NOT for the instant gratification aspect of it
(though I MUST admit It is a GREAT side benefit!)
I just dont understand the argument "Which Is Better" when we still have BOTH
as a viable means to "GET" our pictures.
Fitpix
> limitations curtail its veracity, as you note in your last paragraph.
> Some digital equipment at 8mp, for one reason or another, won't equal the
> best of film. Some will, and in some uses, possibly exceed it. I get
> better 16x20 images from my 20D than I did from my 1n with Ilford XP-2, a
> 400 ISO film. Will I get better 16x20s than from Ektar 25? I don't know,
> since I can't make that comparison.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Ektar 25! Oh how I miss thee! Love my 20D but have a moving water fetish
that ISO 25 was just perfect for!
Larry
Da...@delawarestudioNOSPAM.com says...
> Ektar 25! Oh how I miss thee! Love my 20D but have a moving water fetish
> that ISO 25 was just perfect for!
>
> D
> www.pbase.com/fitpix
> >
> >
>
>
>
I dont know as I'de call it a "fetish" but I also LOVE to photograph "moving
Water" scenes.
Living near the ocean, and working for a water company give me the oportunity
to shoot a lot of both small streams and large bodies of water.
KBob
>KBob wrote:
>> Certainly 8 Mp could beat the pants off of 35mm film, if it was 8 Mpx
>> in a high-end pro camera with a critically fine lens. However, this
>> simply isn't the case when we speak of "8 Mpx cameras." For that
>> matter, the D100, D70 etc. easily beat film, but you will be
>> disappointed with the dinky-sensored consumer cameras that tout 8 Mpx,
>> since a large portion of their resolution is lost due to bleedover and
>> other anomalies associated with the tiny sensor size.
>
>Here's a question from another angle (and if it's been thrashed out
>before, my apologies): Given a full-frame (24mm x 36mm) sensor, how many
>Mpx are required to take full advantage of today's best lenses? Being
>retired and now using my gear for pleasure, not for income, I'm kind of
>holding out for ~12 Mpx, but that's really just a S.W.A.G. What are the
>facts?
That's hard to answer, since at least with my experience in using the
Kodak 14n (14 Mpx F-F), a good many popular lenses are very challenged
when using this camera. You might not think so, since the sensor's
resolution is inherently limited to about 60 l/mm, but this is
sufficient to reveal a lack of critical "sharpness" even on some
highly-touted Nikkors. A falloff of resolution seems to create a much
more noticeable visual problem with digital as opposed to film. For
example, my 80-200mm f/2.8 is highly regarded, but fails to deliver
more than about 48 l/mm when wide open at its 200mm setting, rendering
its images at this setting unsuited to enlargements beyond about 8X10.
Both of my recent 50mm Nikkor primes (f/1.8 and f/1.4) show problems
wide open--the f/1.8 goes soft, and the f/1.4 has contrast falloff.
In fact, of the 40 or so Nikkors in my collection, there are only a
couple that don't have problems at some settings (apart from
diffraction limiting).
It's my guess that when Nikon's new D2X with 12 Mpx hits the street,
we'll see a lot of owners shedding their coveted zoom lenses and
looking for primes, at least if they wish to take advantage of this
very high-res sensor.
Also we shouldn't forget the constraints that digital sensors put on
lenses. The exit pupil characteristics of many lenses render them
poorly suited to digital use, and usually this is due to having an
optical formula that places the exit pupil overly close to the "film"
plane, thus creating an angle of light incidence that is not properly
accepted by the sensor and its antialiasing system (microlenses).
Most retrofocus lenses work reasonably well, but their design is
intended to provide clearance for the mirror swing, and in some cases
this is still insufficient to provide the relatively normal incidence
required at the sensor/microlens surface.
So to answer your question more directly, if you were to use lenses
that exhibit high resolution, say in excess of 100 l/mm, then you
could profit from a full-frame 35mm sensor of about 20 Mpx or even
more. From a practical standpoint, however, you always should take
this Mpx figure back to the print sizes you intend to use, and when
you consider the inherent spreading of the printed image and finite
resolution that can be realized with an ink-jet printout, you're left
with a simple formula that can be used to determine how many pixels
are required to deliver a print that will be regarded under close
inspection as "sharp." This comes close to 0.05 Mpx per square inch,
for prints of normal proportions. If it were possible to print at
higher resolution than the technology permits today, this figure could
be doubled to about 0.1 Mpx per square inch, in which case we would
have what is generally considered "critically sharp" prints.
High-res digital backs on mid-format cameras such as Hassleblads may
not be the answer, either. Measurements of lens resolution for a wide
range of lenses for these cameras show them to be only moderately good
resolvers, probably due to the compromises required in achieving the
added coverage.
-KBob
Alan Browne
> Ektar 25! Oh how I miss thee! Love my 20D but have a moving water fetish
Try an enema...
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI gallery]: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- [SI rulz]: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
ThomasH
How would this be possible with its all-orange semi translucent
result? A slide film has dyes which range from virtually
transparent to very dark. And the dynamic range derives from
the difference between these both values.
On a developed negative material nothing is really complete
transparent or opaque. Even the extreme light values in the
scene are always "light orange-greenish" or "dark orange-greenish".
What makes you believe that such material stores somehow larger
dynamic range of information than the slide? I recall that Bill
Tuthill wrote recently that because of the limited dynamic range
of negative material, they have much lesser grain and higher
resolution compared to slide film of a similar sensitivity.
Thus, its a tradeoff of a kind. I would not be surprised that
the total amount of information in both materials will be similar
to each other.
Thomas
Skip M
Sorry, bud, you're wrong. The native file from my 20D, Jpeg Large/Fine is
23.4M. It produces a RAW file that when converted to Tiff 16 bit that is
46.8M. I'd threaten to send it you, but it's too large for my server. ;-)
Skip M
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Fitpix" <Da...@delawarestudioNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:x52od.22422$T13....@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
Gordon Moat
> quoting Popular Photography, March 2001, page 55:
> from our own tests, a tripod mounted, high end SLR with a superb lens and
> ISO 100 color print film can capture the equivalent of a 40 megapixel
> sensor...
>
> kodak's estimate for mid-speed film is "at least 24 megapixels" equivalent
>
> AFIPS peer reviewed scientific paper:
> 35mm fast film (ISO 400 and up) =~ 22 megapixel equiv.
> 35mm medium speed film (ISO 100 to 200) = 54 megapixel equiv.
> 35mm slow speed film (circa ISO 25-80) =~ 125 megapixel equiv.
>
> NASA's Roger Clark's Scanned velvia 35mm ~ 14.4 Megapixels
> ==============
>
> in other words, the scanning process loses much of the higher frequency
> and higher resolution data, dumbing down film hugely. So if you think
> mid-speed 35mm films (ISO 100-ish) are only 6 MP equiv., then you have
> lost 48 MP of data (AFIPS 54MP - 6 MP=48) or "at least" 18 MP of data
> (Kodak est. of 24 MP - 6 MP) or 34 MP of data (Pop Photo real world tests
> of 40 MP - 6 MP = 34 MP) - somewhere around 75-90% of the information and
> high resolution data in film. This seems to be partly a Nyquist limitation
> of the scanner sensor and optics subsystem.
A simpler way to approach this can be seen in some experiments done by a few
individuals. Just over a year ago there was an article in Reponses Photo
(French) about using drum scanning oil on glass mounted 35 mm slides, and
then scanning them with a CCD film scanner. The results were indeed better
using that method, even though nothing had changed with the scanner.
Something that simple indicates that getting the best out of a film scanner
might require some unusual effort. Since fewer people get drum scans than in
the past, especially for smaller 35 mm film, the general assumption should be
that we rarely will capture all the information possible.
>
>
> in short, film (with submicron "sensor" grains) has a huge advantage in
> resolution over digital sensors (with sensor sites 3+ microns in size
> squared to 10+ microns-square areas, vs. under 1 micron square area film
> grains). Film emulsions can also be vertically stacked (as in color film),
> further enhancing density and color resolution, etc. Finally, film is
> cheap to make in larger formats (medium format, LF etc.) making it easy to
> get even larger resolution factors, unlike silicon sensor production....
Fairly obvious that larger film will contain more information. Of course,
there are always a few compromises for using equipment that handles larger
film, compared to 35 mm sized gear. Direct digital has dumbed down the need
for large scans, and large file sizes. There are fewer companies that will
not accept small files than in the past. Late 1990s era meant drum scans for
publication, while just a couple years into 2000s we see fairly small files
being used for publication images. The proliferation of software for upsizing
and sharpening images in various ways also indicates that smaller files are
more acceptable. While in the past one needed medium format or large format
for their work to be more acceptable for publication, that is no longer the
situation. Part of that is from better and more affordable scanning gear, but
another part is the larger adoption of direct digital.
I think we will eventually see more larger direct digital systems, and at a
slightly better price. If I were to guess about five years from now, I would
think that full frame 35 mm sized sensors would be the enthusiasts,
photojournalists, and low end professional norm. The higher up professionals
would likely be using 645 sized direct digital, with maybe not much need to
go beyond that. I also think that scanners will continue to improve, and
continue to be more affordable, making scanned film still a viable choice,
especially for those without ultra short deadlines. Anyway, the basic idea of
the past of 35 mm and medium format (at least 645 sized), I think will become
the professional to amateur deviation in the near future.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>