Resolution Comparison.

[Anthony MD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Images I make with a Leica MD262 using a SD card showing 5976 x 3992  RAW can be fully zoomed in and still shows good detail on my computer screen.

Film premium scans made showing 6774 x 4492 JPEG show a lot less detail with the same zoom.

Is it RAW vs JPEG why such difference is apparent…?

 

Edited March 10, 2024 by Anthony MD

[Advertisement]

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

[Anthony MD]

1 hour ago, Al Brown said:

The difference is "eaten up" by how scanner captures the data from film. Depends vastly on the scanner make and quality, type of film used, how the scans were saved (losless or not).

I use Blue Moon with top end scanners and premium scans.  Film developed optically, of course…!

[Jean-Michel]

Film lost the resolution war a long time ago. With film, I rarely printed an image larger than 8 by 12 inches. 35 mm was a miniature size. 6 cm film would  be used when larger sizes were needed, and sheet film for anything larger yet.

Just like comparing charcoal or pastel to oil paintings, comparing film to digital leads nowhere.

[sometimesmaybe]

i recently shot a set with a film SLR (canon 1v) and an ancient full frame DSLR (canon 1 ds 2). i was trying to replicate the look of film with the DLSR 5

i downsized the 16mp DLSR image to the same size as my film scan (2400 x 3600). was shooting with Kodak Vision 3 500T

just from a side by side comparison, the DSLR delivered way more detail. i had to soften the details by quite a bit (and add loads of grain).

even if i used portra 160, i suspect the DLSR is going to deliver more detail even when resized