Megapixels

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There must be an "equivalent" resolution in Megapixels. So simply asked: How much is it ?

With this description I have no idea. Maybe you ? More or less than 12-16 Megapixels ? Does anybody else have an idea ?

Which film? Velvia 50? Pan F? Kodachrome 25?

 

We used to mulltipass scan on an Imacon regularly. At 3200dpi we could clearly see the film structure. SO for 35mm and Velvia that's about 16MP-20MP. But the differences in the media (film being layered) means it's not even going to be exact.

 

Plus the real difference is DR. 5 stops with Velvia. 8-9 stops with NPS and maybe 11 stops with Pan F depending on development. Now we whinge about anything less than 13 stops.

 

Comparing film and digital is like comparing a Landrover and a Mini. Possible but ultimately there are many more differences than just size.

 

Gordon

[scott kirkpatrick]

Another way to look at this is to compare the pixel spacing (6 microns in the M240's and Aii's 6000x4000 pixel array, 4.88 microns in the A7R's 36 MPx array).It takes a pair of pixels to represent a line pair, so the 24 MPx arrays can render 80 line pairs/mm (in principle) and the 36 MPx sensor can deliver just over 100 lpm.  A lens which delivers finer structure than that will produce some artifacts.

 

scott

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ramarren]

After years of people trying to come up with a simple equivalence between film and digital capture resolution, and arguing about it constantly, I stopped listening and reading all the arguments, specifications, etc. I look to the size prints that work well, on average, and try to deduce the limits that I'm willing to consider for film: 

 

With most popular films and standard processing, 35mm format falls apart after about a 10x enlargement or so, implying an image size on 11x17 inch paper with a thin border is the effective, average limit. With a 4000 ppi scanner, you get about 21.5 Mpixels from 35mm (3780 x 5670 pixels), and to get print quality equivalent to a darkroom print takes about 300ppi from scanned film for a "just a little larger than" 11x17 inch print. Considering some of the slower, technical or super fine grain B&W films can do a little better than the average. That logic and set of calculations led me to conclude that a camera with a FF sensor that returned 4000x6000 image pixels (24 Mpixels...) to be equivalent to the best that one could get out of 35mm film, and the most likely 'best match' to the best 35mm lenses that existed. 

 

If we then extrapolate out the pixel density on that sensor area for larger formats, a 30x45 mm sensor should have about 38 Mpixel—pretty close to the Leica S! Makes me wonder if Leica reasoned the optimum sensor size and pixel density in the M, SL, and S cameras the same way? 

 

This is why what I'd really love for my "medium format ultra-wide" obsession is a 90 Mpixel sensor, 56x56 mm in size, with a 38mm lens in front of it ... but I do fantasize. 

Edited January 8, 2017 by ramarren

[pico]

ramarren (Godfrey) put his view very well. I accept the 24Mpixels as a milestone better than my needs for  my anticipated lifetime,  however looking to the possible  future of my grandchildren I wonder what they would find superior. Why not extrapolate?

 

In 1995, when the 'web' was an infant, and thanks to my budget for R&D I got an Apple Quicktake 100, .3Mpx.  Oh, man, it was just the right size to make images that fit the bandwidth and monitors of the time.  Here's one from the first Quicktake taken by a lady friend.  (Spooky, is it not? Taken at the farm on top of the bluff where the wind blew constantly.) If all I could have is what I had then, I'd still be happy with  <1Mpx.

 

So thanks to all the input here, I will stick to the M9's paltry output dimensions. I never print large, even with LF and MF.

 

Thanks to all for the posts.

Edited January 8, 2017 by pico

[ramarren]

Thanks for the compliment, pico! 

 

One additional note: I made that assessment and those calculations in 2001, when even a bottom of the line DSLR camera was around a 3 Mpixel machine costing $4-6K dollars. It took another 10-15 years for 24 MPixel, FF cameras to hit my 'wish list' numbers. The introduction of the M typ 240 hit the resolution in 2012, the SL nailed the rest of the spec sheet in 2015. 

 

The SL is almost exactly the camera I wished for in 2001... I had no idea that my calculations and desires were so forward looking. It was amazing to see my notions fulfilled and expectations validated almost to the letter. 

[steppenw0lf]

Here a website about this comparison between film and sensor. In german, but the list is easily understandable anyway.

http://www.photoscala.de/2010/06/26/wie-viele-megapixel-hat-ein-film/

For Velvia50 they get ideally   24x160 x 36x160 = 3840 x 5760 = 22 MP.

The values are under ideal conditions - which is not necessarily often the case. So a deduction makes sense, but how much is again open for discussion ...           (e.g. 30% deduction ?)

 

Did not know that there is a "gigabit film" (b/w) that leapfrogged all current sensor and lens developments.  

 

As contrast I add an excerpt from wikipedia, that gives smaller/larger numbers:      

The resolution of film images depends upon the area of film used to record the image (35 mm, medium format or large format) and the film speed. Estimates of a photograph's resolution taken with a 35 mm film camera vary. More information may be recorded if a fine-grain film, combined with a specially formulated developer, are used. Conversely, use of poor-quality optics or coarse-grained film yield lower image resolution. A 36 mm × 24 mm frame of ISO 100-speed film was initially estimated to contain the equivalent of 20 million pixels,^[6] although this estimate was later revised to between 4 and 16 million pixels depending on the type of film used.^[7] However, this has been challenged, and some estimate the amount of pixels on a single frame of 35mm film is over 40 megapixels.^[8][9][10]

Edited January 9, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Another way to look at this is to compare the pixel spacing (6 microns in the M240's and Aii's 6000x4000 pixel array, 4.88 microns in the A7R's 36 MPx array).It takes a pair of pixels to represent a line pair, so the 24 MPx arrays can render 80 line pairs/mm (in principle) and the 36 MPx sensor can deliver just over 100 lpm.  A lens which delivers finer structure than that will produce some artifacts.

 

scott

But you are disregarding Bayer interpolation. This reasoning is valid for a monochrome sensor.

[ramarren]

Stefan, that's exactly the sort of ambiguous nonsense I stopped reading in 2001. It's just gobbledygook.

 

I'm very happy with my estimations and how they have worked out in practice.

Edited January 9, 2017 by ramarren

[steppenw0lf]

You don't need to read it, if you already know all about it. For me it was new and therefore interesting to some degree.  

Interesting is that the situation is quite unclear (estimates from 4 MP to over 40 MP)

More interesting maybe: Does this gigabit film actually exist and can be bought or is it just an "idea" ?

Edited January 9, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[jaapv]

The situation is not unclear, it just depends on which MTF curve of the film takes the fancy of the estimator. 

Probably the best value is the Zeiss one. They have determined that the optimal resolution throughout the chain is produced  by a film/lens combination rendering 80 LP/mm. After that it is simple math to extrapolate an MP count for a given sensor size,

As said, this is about the resolving power of small detail. It tells us nothing about the edge contrast which determines the impression of sharpness and tonal transitions on the final image. The DMR still renders much better images than many present-day  cameras despite a modest MP count.

[steppenw0lf]

Yes, that would be nice, but the 50MP camera would at the same time also be much slower, if it was using the same processor.

So I think I rather wait for the next processor generations to get this resolution. And I rather wait for the 75MP or 100MP region.

 

All the discussion made me rethink, if I would buy a Leica SL with 50 MP (with current technology). As stated it would probably be quite slow, and not so user friendly.

I have the 5Ds for comparison. The 50 MP are nice and in some situations - e.g. wide-angle images of detail-rich scenery - you get "better" images.

But as soon as I turn on life-view on the 5Ds the camera is a slouch   . Although the camera has some of the fastest processors in the Canon realm. And this is probably what we would have to expect from a 50MP SL - as it constantly runs in "lifeview mode".

And no, I would not be happy with such a camera.

 

And this is probably also the reason the X1D is a "slouch" (sorry  ) compared to the SL. But it is what all accept from a "midrange" camera, so no problem for midrange fans.

 

So I would probably not buy a 50MP SL, but who knows if GAS would not prevail over good reasoning in the end   ...

So it is actually better if Leica is not offering a 50MP SL ...    

Edited January 9, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[R3D-D0T]

Leica can't even make a reliable 37.5 MP camera.

[steppenw0lf]

The SL is totally reliable up until now (soon a full year). Which is typical for all my Leicas.

(I have no S, simply never had the budget.)

Reliability is probably more related to AF issues and the lenses than the sensor. Maybe that is why the SL lenses are looking too large for the camera (they added a safety margin).

[wildlightphoto]

This might help illustrate why I'd prefer more pixels.  From this photo (cropped from the full file, made with SL and 90-280 APO and processed to reduce the artifacts)

 

 

a 100% crop (look in the circled areas; other areas show artifacts as well)

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by wildlightphoto

[R3D-D0T]

The SL is totally reliable up until now (soon a full year). Which is typical for all my Leicas.

(I have no S, simply never had the budget.)

Reliability is probably more related to AF issues and the lenses than the sensor. Maybe that is why the SL lenses are looking too large for the camera (they added a safety margin).

 

 

There are problems with the S bodies as well. It's not just the lenses that have quality control.

 

And yeah those zoom lenses are impractical af. Yet their primes aren't shipping anytime soon (even the 50mm one seems delayed).

 

Don't really see much of a reason to get this camera when there are others that have better value (and more resolution), unless you really want that EVF...

[fsprow]

To answer an earlier question about examination of the images from a Hasselblad H6D-100c versus the 50c, this was from looking at a large monitor from 100% crops.

 

As another point, I've found that high quality scans from Velvia 50 exposed in my Hasselblad SWC (56x56mm film) are quite comparable in resolution (though with different artifacts) to the 50c which is the same sensor as used in the X1D. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

To answer an earlier question about examination of the images from a Hasselblad H6D-100c versus the 50c, this was from looking at a large monitor from 100% crops.

 

As another point, I've found that high quality scans from Velvia 50 exposed in my Hasselblad SWC (56x56mm film) are quite comparable in resolution (though with different artifacts) to the 50c which is the same sensor as used in the X1D. 

 

Well in your case the film image would have three times the surface area of the mini MF sensor, so I'm not surprised.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

All the discussion made me rethink, if I would buy a Leica SL with 50 MP (with current technology). As stated it would probably be quite slow, and not so user friendly.

I have the 5Ds for comparison. The 50 MP are nice and in some situations - e.g. wide-angle images of detail-rich scenery - you get "better" images.

But as soon as I turn on life-view on the 5Ds the camera is a slouch   . Although the camera has some of the fastest processors in the Canon realm. And this is probably what we would have to expect from a 50MP SL - as it constantly runs in "lifeview mode".

And no, I would not be happy with such a camera.

 

And this is probably also the reason the X1D is a "slouch" (sorry  ) compared to the SL. But it is what all accept from a "midrange" camera, so no problem for midrange fans.

 

So I would probably not buy a 50MP SL, but who knows if GAS would not prevail over good reasoning in the end   ...

So it is actually better if Leica is not offering a 50MP SL ...    

 

The Canon is a "slouch" in live view because it's not designed to be a mirrorless camera. The feed off the sensor is slower and the focus system changes to CDAF while trying to drive PDAF lenses.

 

The 42MP Sony A7R2 has lower powered processors and a smaller buffer than the SL and manages just fine except for a lower burst rate and less shots in the buffer.

 

there is absolutely no reason a 50 MP SL would be slow like the 5DSR in live view as it's designed to be a mirrorless camera fro the start. It wouldn't be shooting at 11FPS but that's not unexpected.

 

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

There are problems with the S bodies as well. It's not just the lenses that have quality control.

 

And yeah those zoom lenses are impractical af. Yet their primes aren't shipping anytime soon (even the 50mm one seems delayed).

 

Don't really see much of a reason to get this camera when there are others that have better value (and more resolution), unless you really want that EVF...

 

Build quality. layout and operation. EVF. System compatibility. I have an A7R2 and I'd buy a 40+ MP SL in a heartbeat. I like everything better on the SL and I wouldn't need a second set of AF lenses if I didn't have the Sony. And the lenses that work on b oth are better in use on the Leica.

 

YMMV, but I don't find the zoom lenses impractical. The additional range compared to the normal 24-70 and 70-200 set is most welcome to me. Adding even a teleconverter to Nikon or Canons offering to get the same range gives the same size and weight with less convenience and slightly lower image quality. If you want to settle for something with less range and/or build quality by all means get something else.

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jmahto]

I have never been able to extract more than 10mp from my Kodachromes. All I get is film grain after that.