Digital camera’s MP to scan a film

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

https://jonathangazeley.com/2011/02/12/how-many-megapixels-do-you-get-from-film/
 

I have a lot film waiting for scanning. Now I am switching my computer engineering projects so I have sometime to continue the scanning.

Compared to my last session, now my digital camera has higher MP, (finally I find a way to put it to use). I did try to get more MP out of the films by multiple scan and stitch. The results are not so great.
 

The main problem is the dynamic range and grain/cloud of the film, which suffers a lot due to my poor darkroom development, particularly the E6 and B&W, C41 is somewhat better due to the professional labs. But C41 has much narrower raw dynamic range. Expansion in post processing (by  interpolation) does help, but it is cheating in some sense.

Anyone has compared the scannied image quality between (more) multiple scan and stitch from a smaller sensor camera (and lens) vs. and (less) multiple or single scan of a larger sensor camera?

 

Edited March 25 by Einst_Stein

[algrove]

I have scanned my B&W films with an M11. Got a cheap Macro  2:1 Laowa 85 f5.6 and it works fine over my scanning board. Next I will perhaps redo some with my M11M.

[Advertisement]

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

[hansvons]

On 3/25/2024 at 12:26 AM, Einst_Stein said:

I did try to get more MP out of the films by multiple scan and stitch. The results are not so great.

Kodak claims that their Vision3 stocks can resolve about 4K+ on S-35mm depending on speed when correctly exposed and properly developed (ENC-2).

In my experience, at full frame exposed, the negatives‘ resolution doesn’t exceed my SL2-S resolution with a proper macro lens attached for scanning. 
This matches my experience with telecined negative stocks in film production. 35mm film is not a high-resolving medium. Any modern 24 MP digital camera will outperform 35mm film in resolution. 

[Einst_Stein]

https://jonathangazeley.com/2011/02/12/how-many-megapixels-do-you-get-from-film/

According to this analysis 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

However, I think some films may significantly exceed this, such as the old Techpan.  Edited April 2 by Einst_Stein

[250swb]

I don't get it, or is it a trick question? If it's the same film used a 10x8 negative will still be the same 20 megapixels resolution as 35mm, there is just more area, the resolving power of the film doesn't increase. So the table is a guess about how many megapixels it would take to copy different areas of film and not the optical resolution of film, but he's seeing it a different way. Maybe I'm not seeing it right but I don't think his analysis is about your question.

Edited April 2 by 250swb

[hansvons]

7 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

However, I think some films may significantly exceed this, such as the old Techpan. 

Yes, might be. However, none of the faster stocks are remotely in the 20MP ballpark. 
I find resolution the last thing I‘m looking for when shooting film and scanning it. Sharp grain to the corners is a must for a good scan. That, however is a lens/editor issue.

31 minutes ago, 250swb said:

I don't get it, or is it a trick question?

 

😎 Not at all. A specific stock resolves whatever it resolves. When using a larger film area for a specific image size, you’ll effectively enlarge the resolution. That's all about it. He did some easy math based on 135 film. However, the 20MP figure is too optimistic for most film stocks, at least from ISO 100 upwards.

[250swb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Increasing the size will increase the apparent resolution, not the actual resolution. If the same film is used it's the same distribution of grain per square inch whether 35mm or 8x10.