rick123 Posted October 4, 2006 Share #1 Posted October 4, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was wondering, how many megapixels are necessary to achieve the exact same quality photo shot with an earlier Leica M camera (say a M6) and great film (say Velvia 100)? Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Hi rick123, Take a look here How many megapixels are equivalent to film?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
waileong Posted October 4, 2006 Share #2 Posted October 4, 2006 Supposedly 20-25 megapixels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_mitchell Posted October 5, 2006 Share #3 Posted October 5, 2006 Somewhere round 10-12 megapixels. Of course you can scan the film to a much higher resolution but all you get is more noise - not more detail. The 16MP Canon 1Ds2 has been shown in several tests to out-resolve 100 ISO film. 20-25 MP is way off the mark. That's equivalent to 645 film resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
malcolm Posted October 5, 2006 Share #4 Posted October 5, 2006 Somewhere round 10-12 megapixels. Of course you can scan the film to a much higher resolution but all you get is more noise - not more detail. The 16MP Canon 1Ds2 has been shown in several tests to out-resolve 100 ISO film. 20-25 MP is way off the mark. That's equivalent to 645 film resolution. Graham, I must disagree on a couple of counts. Scanning film at higher resolutions does not only increase noise (especially if multiple scans of the same film are employed). Also, if I scan at the highest resolution of my scanner (5400 dpi) to the same image size as from a digital original (in RAW or TIFF), the effective digital equivalent is about 20 megapixels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gylee Posted October 5, 2006 Share #5 Posted October 5, 2006 I also believe that 10-12 is correct for the megapixel equivalent of 35mm film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_mitchell Posted October 5, 2006 Share #6 Posted October 5, 2006 Actually I was being generous to 35mm film. It may be more accurate to say around 8 MP! ------------------- Quote from Digital cameras vs. film, part 2 "How many pixels does a digital sensor need to outperform 35mm film?" The answer is less speculative than it used to be: The 11+ megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds, EOS-1Ds Mark II, and EOS 5D clearly outperform 35mm. I can make finer prints with the 8.3 megapixel EOS 20D (razor sharp at 13x19 inches) than I ever could with 35mm" ------------------- Here is a comparison between the Canon 1Ds (~11 MP, I believe) and 35mm film: Canon 1Ds. 50mm f8 1/100sec. RAW file. 35mm Provia 100F. 50mm f8 1/60sec. And another: Canon 1Ds. 50mm f16 1/2sec. RAW file. 35mm Provia 100F. 50mm f16 1/2sec. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_mitchell Posted October 5, 2006 Share #7 Posted October 5, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here are some real world results, reproduced from Digital SLR vs. Film Scans, a technical discussion & comparison images Full frame: Canon 1Ds Mark II 24-70 f2.8 L lens @ 46mm Provia F ISO 100, 24-70 f2.8 L lens @ 45mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_mitchell Posted October 5, 2006 Share #8 Posted October 5, 2006 Here's a comparison between film and the 8MP Canon 20D. Very close! Read more here: http://www.gnyman.com/Digital%20Cameras%20comparison%20with%20Film.htm --------------------- Here's another interesting little article: Clumps and Chumps ---------------------- I hope that puts the 20-25 MP rumours to rest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 5, 2006 Share #9 Posted October 5, 2006 One of the problems with answering a question like this is that MP res. is not the only equivalent factor to consider. Resolution is not only tied to MP and it is far from the only factor that determines file quality (negative scan or digital capture). Leaving the math aside entirely, I rely on experience and my eyes. As background, I've worked as a professional photographer for over twenty years and as an exhibition printer for several years. In both capacities, I've worked extensively with film up to 4" x 5". I've also worked with FF digital cameras (such as the 1Ds) as well as cameras with smaller sensors for several years. My general impression is that the cameras with APS-C sensors and about 6-8 MP tend to render much like cameras using 135 mm format film. Leaving the numbers aside and simply looking at final prints, that's what I'm seeing. It took art directors several years to get away from the idea that file quality was dependent on file size but most of them "get it" now. Cameras such as the 1Ds, 5D, 1DsMkII and DMR render more like medium format film cameras. The DMR does this using a smaller sensor but with no AA filter. The presence or absence (or strength) of an AA filter can be an important factor in this. My colleague Michael Reichman has come to similar conclusions about these rough equivalencies. Many people will argue against these equivalencies based on math but if one actually looks at final prints, the evidence is fairly clear. "Film", per se, has many different looks and one medium never will look exactly like another. So, if one wants to split hairs on this, no digital capture is equivalent to film and vice-versa. But if one wants to look more broadly, these very general equivalencies should tend to hold true. A good 6-8 MP capture made with an excellent lens on a camera with an APS-C or larger sensor will generally be useable for the same purposes as most 135 mm film scans. A glossy magazine such as the "Robb Report" for example, expects a minimum file of 6 MP from a DSLR or the like, preferably captured RAW. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 5, 2006 Share #10 Posted October 5, 2006 I was wondering, how many megapixels are necessary to achieve the exact same quality photo shot with an earlier Leica M camera (say a M6) and great film (say Velvia 100)? Thanks! Rick-- Good question but unanswerable. Unanswerable because of your stipulation "exact same quality." Film and digital will never have the same quality because they work so completely differently. When the DMR came out, LFI ran a nice series of comparison shots, using the same body and lenses to compare results (and comparing in a couple instances as well with Canon 5D). If you're talking detail resolution, the DMR far outresolves black & white film for example. But the pictures look completely different, very much like the difference between film and video. (For example, see a theatrical presentation of "Run, Lola, Run," which uses film for all shots where Lola and/or Manni is present, tape for others.) So there really isn't an answer; each medium has its own look and feel. For example, look at the very distracting digital artifacting arount the top part of light pole in the above example of the Canon 20D (http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/6694-how-many-megapixels-equivalent-film.html?posted=1#post64638). Michael Reichmann has done some interesting comparisons on LuLa; and as you know, many photographers feel that both the Canon full-frame cameras and the DMR are capable of producing images that look like medium-format film. Yet other cameras with similar pixel counts do not look nearly that good. Leica holds that the DMR (and by extension the M8) has a sensor thoroughly adequate and proper for Leica lenses, but they will never say that one will get identical performance on both digital and film. (Oops--I see Sean popped in with an answer while I was drafting mine; we've both said some of the same things, though with different emphases.) Enjoy! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 5, 2006 Share #11 Posted October 5, 2006 Here's a comparison between film and the 8MP Canon 20D. Very close! Of course, the challenge with that specific comparison is that two different lenses were used. That adds in a variable which can't be discounted. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 5, 2006 Share #12 Posted October 5, 2006 Michael compared files from the D30 and film scans nearly six years ago in an article that caused wide controversy. For those interested in one piece in the history of these kinds of comparisons, see: D30 Vs Film His article on the 1Ds as compared to 135 mm and medium format film scans might also be of interest: Canon 1Ds Field Report This latter article includes not only Michael's impressions but also those of Thomas Knoll. Most of this is old news to many photographers. How does the M8 fit into all of this? In a post to this forum a couple of weeks ago, I talked about the M8 as the digital return of the "Texas Leica". As soon as I'm able to publish based on a production camera I'll explain exactly why I say that. Cheers, Sean (who's up late finishing up DVDs for a client) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted October 5, 2006 Share #13 Posted October 5, 2006 Here is a comparison with the same lens I've posted many times, a Leica R 28mm/2.8 at f/8 & using a tripod. On top, Provia 100F scanned at 4000 DPI with a Nikon LS4000. BTW, I compared with a Minolta 5400 at 5400 DPI which I also own and saw no difference in resolution. On bottom, Canon Eos1Ds, jpeg mode, every body parameters set to default and no post-processing. I've also attached 2 other crops from the same image. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/6631-how-many-megapixels-are-equivalent-to-film/?do=findComment&comment=64552'>More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted October 5, 2006 Share #14 Posted October 5, 2006 Here is another set, shot at the same time but not with the same lens. Both pictures with flash, one is DMR, 100 ISO, f/4 and 60mm/2.8. The other one is Leica R6.2, Astia 100F scanned at 4000 DPI on a Nikon LS4000 (also with the Minolta, no difference here too) and 90mm/2 AA at f/4 which is a sharper lens than the 60mm. The pictures are 100% crop and the DMR file has been upsized to match the scan resolution. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/6631-how-many-megapixels-are-equivalent-to-film/?do=findComment&comment=64557'>More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted October 5, 2006 Share #15 Posted October 5, 2006 From the same images, here is another crop. I have even increased sharpening on the film one to help. So one can talk for a long time about the megapixel count needed and so on but for me and for any practical usage, a 10 Mpix is much better than film both in resolution and in colour fairness. However, I still shoot film because I like it and because when I print my scans, they still looks quite good and I'm not ashamed to show them besides my digital pictures. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/6631-how-many-megapixels-are-equivalent-to-film/?do=findComment&comment=64561'>More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted October 5, 2006 Share #16 Posted October 5, 2006 This is all really interesting and tells me that 35mm film at ISO100 does not produce the same sharpness/resolution as a digital camera. I did notice that the Canon 20D is not a FF sensor so did the comparision take this into account? I guess the 1Ds is FF though? Anyway, it reinforces my idea to get the DMR but I am waiting for about 6 months before taking the plunge and will always keep my Ms for film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted October 5, 2006 Share #17 Posted October 5, 2006 Somewhere round 10-12 megapixels. Of course you can scan the film to a much higher resolution but all you get is more noise - not more detail. You all seem to be comparing scanned film to digital, but with a very few recent exceptions film isn't designed to be scanned, and the scanning process is the limiting factor. A person I know on another forum shoots both digital (Nikon D2X) and film, and whilst he is entirely satisfed with what the digital gives him, he also knows that he can extract more detail from a conventionally printed 35mm neg. Also, see this Puts article - Slow life culture and the slow speed silver halide film Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 5, 2006 Share #18 Posted October 5, 2006 1) When printing magazines, you print (minimum) 400 dpi today. In newspapers much less (150 dpi) . And of coruse for web, so low that a mobile telephone camera can do (72 dpi) So in forder for a digital A4 print to be without pixelation, it must be a around 15 MP cropped. For a A4 photo paper print (professional lab developed print) 300 DPI is the minimum limit. However, many printers will allow for less DPI to look nice. Actually, sometimes a 72dpi print looks cool on a ink jet print. 2) Another thing is then the look. I think you easily get into "the erwin putts mode" with diagrams and pictures of walls. Who the f... cares how a lamp post in the upper right 1x1 mm corner of your shot looks? When I researched digitals some years ago, I was into this enlargement-shit. But at one stage I simply took a look at the whole pictute. How did A SHOT look, and not some enlarged detail. That was what led me to buy thge Digilux 1 instead of Canon G3 or G5 then. The Canon clearly had less noice and better enlargement-detail. But when looking at the overall picture, the Leica simply looked more real, morea pleasant. I would say the same goes for film versus digital. I can see the OVERALL difference in an Imacon scan compared to a Nikon scan. In enlargement the Nikon looks cool. But if you look at how the Imacon treats the tones, light, etc that picture simply appears more alive and as a more true representation of the slide. There is more to it than just lines. As it can be seen in lenses where a Canon and Leica lens with the same diagram resolution is not the same. Because, how is the light treated. And as most of may recall, photography is light more than anything else. Film does suck so much detail into it that it is unbelievable. So I think we need MUCH higher MP for digital to look less dull than it does today. It might be 40-60 MP for 35mm which is within range soon (look at RAM in computers, or harddrives and you will get an idea how large MP we will be getting - my first 512 KB RAM (not MB RAM) computer back in 1987 was a FAST 'motherfucker' as the sales man pointed out. And which was true at that time). 3) What will be really intersting is when we get dynamic range up. I was looking at some nice sun this morning, reflecting through the streets here. However, what looked very nice to the eye, would be impossible to get on film og digital. The dynamic range of the eye is so much broader/larger than film and digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 5, 2006 Share #19 Posted October 5, 2006 I recommend the writings of Roger N. Clark. Two interesting links from his site: Clarkvision: Film versus Digital and Clarkvision: Film versus Digital Summary Two graphs are eloquent (see the attachments): ... about printing... Clarkvision: Printer detail and ppi 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/6631-how-many-megapixels-are-equivalent-to-film/?do=findComment&comment=64588'>More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 5, 2006 Share #20 Posted October 5, 2006 This is like counting sheep in the back paddock, eventually it drives you bonkus and you end up 'one sheep short of a station, in the grey matter dept. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.