Jump to content

Fuji Velvia vs 36mp


honcho

Recommended Posts

Well, to be blunt, in Dutch we call this kicking in open doors. Resolution is the least interesting part of  a film-digital comparison. However, I must concur with the conclusion that both film an digital have their place and one cannot replace the other.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 yrs ago I discovered that 16mp and a Tamron zoom gave more detail than Provia 100 and a 35 Summicron asph.

But you have to peer at it at 100% to see that, and there are other factors as jaap says.

 

Gerry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still love to read these academic comparisons. And while they now are more nuanced in stressing that resolution is not the be-all-and-end-all of film vs digital, when you get down to the responses, well sure enough that is what most geeks still focus on.

It is sort of like comparing cars purely by their 0-100km/h performance figure. It tells you something, but does not describe to you what the sensory experience difference is between them. Perception of the beauty of an image is not usually down to the resolution of that image. Mind you, there are plenty of photographers that cannot describe the beauty of an image, but can write volumes on every irrelevant technical deficiency of one.

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

"A digital camera would have to be 156 megapixels to give you the same kind of detail as 35mm film".

http://istillshootfilm.org/post/114131916747/the-real-resolution-of-film-vs-digital

and it is easy to see when looking at the details.

H.

 

35mm film (Velvia 50) is already outclassed in real world detail by 10 MPixel cameras - I know, I've compared both in a scientific study which required fine detail analysis to accurately identify small creatures. Figures certainly don't say it all - but real world applications do change your appreciation of what is actually visible. The film detail may be there but simply wasn't clear enough to be useful and most importantly, credible in terms of the absolute identification. The argument will do on and when absolutes aren't relevant then the questions can be answered differently. But trying to specify an equivalence of 10 or 156 MPixels is going nowhere I'm afraid.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it, it's 2016 and pound for pound film aint winning top trumps in the resolution category. But as Honcho pointed out, there's more to the comparison than that. The takeaway for me is not triumph or disappointment over which medium 'wins' overall but the celebration and pleasure in knowing there is a difference between the two.

Edited by Phil U
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The never-ending squabble between film and digital. So insular neither notices they're both getting their a**es kicked by phones. I'd give the nod to film simply because it's been around for so long but then I'll never send an exposure around the world a few seconds after taking it either. But nobody cares what I think and it's pretty much mutual. I just keep taking pictures; that works.

 

There's a famous pull back shot in a Hollywood western by (I think) John Ford. Two men fighting in the desert and the camera starts to pull back and keeps pulling back like it's never going to stop. Finally it's just this enormous glorious unmoved landscape and you notice these two ants tussling in the dirt.

 

lol,

s-a

Link to post
Share on other sites

The never-ending squabble between film and digital. So insular neither notices they're both getting their a**es kicked by phones.

That is sort of like saying cameras (Speed Graphics) got their asses kicked by 35mm cameras. Phones take pictures using a digital camera.  There are many types of digital cameras today and there are roles for all sorts.

Edited by AlanG
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is sort of like saying cameras (Speed Graphics) got their asses kicked by 35mm cameras. Phones take pictures using a digital camera.  There are many types of digital cameras today and there are roles for all sorts.

If you're going to lump phones in with DSLRs/DRFs simply because they both use an electronic sensor you're not noticing something big that's happening in the world.

 

s-a

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to lump phones in with DSLRs/DRFs simply because they both use an electronic sensor you're not noticing something big that's happening in the world.

 

s-a

What am I missing?  Cellphone photography is digital photography so by definition digital cameras can't get their "asses kicked" by cell phones. 

 

Lots of people use cellphones to take photos. We all know that. And lots of people also use separate cameras to take pictures and shoot videos. There are many more types of cameras today... cellphones, p&s, bridge, long zoom, DSLRs, mirrorless, action cameras, aerial platforms, underwater, special purpose and on and on. There are many more photos being shot daily now than ever before.  If cellphones are good enough for many of these people, even to the point of impacting sales of stand alone cameras, why should I care?  Digital photography is ubiquitous... for better or for worse regardless of the camera used. It isn't going away.

Edited by AlanG
Link to post
Share on other sites

The never-ending squabble between film and digital. So insular neither notices they're both getting their a**es kicked by phones.....

Film vs digital squabbles arise between people who think they know more than they actually do. Read linked article in post #1. It's a comparison, and there is a difference, but it seems from a couple of replies here you need to live a life beyond LUF to understand that.

 

I like the idea of a cellphone vs digital camera squabble though. That sounds like real progress.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

If resolution is the only thing that matters, why aren't these "film is better than digital" people all shooting with 8x10 view cameras??

 

This debate seems so pointless these days.  My M-P can make beautiful prints at large sizes.  My M4-P can make beautiful prints at large sizes.  Enough already!  :rolleyes:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Driving home listening to BBC Radio 4  from work today an item seemed pertinent to the digital/film debate even before I came across this thread. The issue was Australian Aboriginal art. To produce a boomerang may take a day or even two to select the right piece of wood then hours of work shaping and finishing the article. Tourists love them, especially the ones imported from factories in the Philippines apparently. Lots of "man in the street" stops to say how wonderful the Aboriginal work was on the samples shown, all imported and mass produced, yet the Aboriginals persist in maintaining a tradition handed down over generations and part of their culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...