stunsworth Posted October 5, 2006 Share #21 Posted October 5, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) In terms of resolution my Canon 5D is much better than scanned 35mm film, especially b&w. However film does have a different look, less clinical, grainier, so there's definately room for both.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 Hi stunsworth, 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 5, 2006 Share #22 Posted October 5, 2006 It depends on what you shoot, how you shoot, and what you shoot with. Eg Velvia 100 is rated at 80 lpm for normal contrast subjects (160 lpm for test charts)-- see the data sheet at http://www.fujifilmusa.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/AF3-202E.pdf. Suppose you had a lens that could give you 80 lpm, and you could shoot on a tripod so you can get 80 lpm, and you knew how to focus, how to expose, etc. to give you 80 lpm. You need 2 pixels to represent 1 line pair (black and white), hence 80 lpm = 160 pixels per mm So 160 ppm x 24 mm x 36 mm x 160 ppm = 22 MP. Of course, this is theoretical, perfect lab conditions, with perfect lenses, etc. In real world, with camera shake, subject movement, exposure errors, focus errors, you may not be able to even achieve the 50% of the theoretical resolution. Hence your film that's capable of capturing 80 lpm might only record 30 lpm because of these factors. That really brings down what you get from your film, but that is not to say the film is not capable of doing better than what you have. 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...
pascal_meheut Posted October 5, 2006 Share #23 Posted October 5, 2006 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. Scanning is not the limiting factor, at least not more or less than the enlargement. And yes, we compare scanned film because we want the comparison to be practical: do you plan to enlarge your slides using Ilfochrome? Because I did and the enlargement is less sharp than the same image scanned and printed on an inkjet Epson. Or do you plan to shoot negative film? But when most processing/enlarging machine scan them to print them nowadays. And BTW, I compared the scans with the film under microscope: not a huge difference. Can your friend show us some samples? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted October 5, 2006 Share #24 Posted October 5, 2006 Suppose you had a lens that could give you 80 lpm, and you could shoot on a tripod so you can get 80 lpm, and you knew how to focus, how to expose, etc. to give you 80 lpm. Does not work like that. Final resolution is 1/f=1/f1+1/f2. So if you shoot on a 80lpm film with a 80lpm lens, you will end up with 40lpm. For real use, for instance an excellent Leica lens at f/8, 1/250, 100 ISO slide film and an handheld Leica M, you'll probably get around 50 lpm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waileong Posted October 5, 2006 Share #25 Posted October 5, 2006 No, leica lenses can give you more than 80 lpm. But more importantly, I said theoretical, remember? If your shooting conditions do not give you 80 lpm, don't blame the film. The poster asked what was needed to equal film. So assuming everything else is perfect and capable, the resolution limit of film has already been stated very clearly by the manufacturer. Does not work like that. Final resolution is 1/f=1/f1+1/f2. So if you shoot on a 80lpm film with a 80lpm lens, you will end up with 40lpm. For real use, for instance an excellent Leica lens at f/8, 1/250, 100 ISO slide film and an handheld Leica M, you'll probably get around 50 lpm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest umb Posted October 5, 2006 Share #26 Posted October 5, 2006 >> How many megapixels are equivalent to film? 6. With film you will have to go a long way to produce 8x10" prints that have the claritiy and sharpness of a 300dpi print produced from a 6MP cam. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted October 5, 2006 Share #27 Posted October 5, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) No, leica lenses can give you more than 80 lpm. But more importantly, I said theoretical, remember? If your shooting conditions do not give you 80 lpm, don't blame the film. The lens will give you more but not in real use. Read my post. For instance, the 280mm/4 R can give you 400 lpm but according to Leica engineers, you need to stuck it into concrete to get such a resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick123 Posted October 5, 2006 Author Share #28 Posted October 5, 2006 Wow! Thank you all for the most interesting discussion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted October 5, 2006 Share #29 Posted October 5, 2006 i recall reading that kodachrome 25 asa had either 25 million pixels, or 25 million per sq inch weve got a ways to go yet Riley Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 5, 2006 Share #30 Posted October 5, 2006 What a load of drivel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 5, 2006 Share #31 Posted October 5, 2006 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 Excellent response. All of the comparisons are pretty vague, depends on the scanner, the processing, how the camera was used (tripod/handheld?), enviroment, not to mention using the same lenses etc etc. How many people look at 100% crops in 'real life'? How about looking at two large prints min 20 X 16 one from a digital file and one from film and then deciding which you prefer. My guess is that the subject matter will then become the deciding factor. You don't hear too many artists arguing over whether Oils or Watercolours are better! Regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted October 5, 2006 Share #32 Posted October 5, 2006 How many fine arts are done with 00sable .... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waileong Posted October 5, 2006 Share #33 Posted October 5, 2006 Then stick it into concrete. The point is, if the lens is capable only of 50 lpm in real life, then the limiting factor is the lens resolution, not the film resolution. 50 lpm doesn't even equate to 10 MP. So whether you put a CCD or a piece of Velvia behind the lens doesn't matter. But if it matters, if you can squeeze > 100 lpm out of your lens, then you should ask yourself, do I put a piece of Velvia rated at 80 lpm behind the lens, or do I put a 10 MP chip. Wai Leong === The lens will give you more but not in real use. Read my post. For instance, the 280mm/4 R can give you 400 lpm but according to Leica engineers, you need to stuck it into concrete to get such a resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted October 5, 2006 Share #34 Posted October 5, 2006 Scanning is not the limiting factor, at least not more or less than the enlargement. And yes, we compare scanned film because we want the comparison to be practical: do you plan to enlarge your slides using Ilfochrome? Because I did and the enlargement is less sharp than the same image scanned and printed on an inkjet Epson.Or do you plan to shoot negative film? But when most processing/enlarging machine scan them to print them nowadays. And BTW, I compared the scans with the film under microscope: not a huge difference. Can your friend show us some samples? I should perhaps have said that this is prints made in his own darkroom, so apologies if that wasn't clear. There is no comparison with a machine print; surely we should all be aware of that. As for your final question, that would involve scanning the prints in, probably with a low resolution flatbed, which would rather defeat the object surely? You wouldn't be able to come to any meaningful conclusion based on viewing on a monitor anyway. I'm quite sure he wouldn't wish to get dragged into another film vs digital discussion in any case, having dealt with more than his fair share at the other place. Oh, and when I shoot slides it would be for projecting rather than printing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted October 5, 2006 Share #35 Posted October 5, 2006 >> How many megapixels are equivalent to film? 6. With film you will have to go a long way to produce 8x10" prints that have the claritiy and sharpness of a 300dpi print produced from a 6MP cam. There's far more to a good photograph than mere print sharpness IMVHO. A lot of digital photographs I see in 'pro' magazines these days look completely un-natural to me (UK readers can see as an easy example the Gregory Crewdson cover picture of BJP this week (date 4/10/06) which to my eyes looks more like an ink painting than a photo). That "look" might be in favour right now, but I think in years to come it may be regarded with as much horror as a lot of 1980s music production. Digital photographs have inherently higher contrast down to fine details than those made with film, and it is this whch helps make prints from digital cameras look sharper. The use of higher contrast to improve perceived sharpness is an old trick which has existed since at least the heights of the Leitz/Contax rivalry of the 1930s, and probably long before. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 5, 2006 Share #36 Posted October 5, 2006 i think photographer should be concerned more about the image than about the numbers... leave the numbers for engeners and alike. im very much with what sean says... true - i see the photos from digital (not mine though except the dlux2) and from films (mine and others who use). clearly there is differance... but this differance is not in numbers ... it is in over-all look (i think thorsten made this point too very clearly). different mediums - different ways to interprate and capture the light.... now... i dont care how many lines will be reswolved on sensor or on film.... any modern high quality gear (leica, canonn, nikon, olympus etc.. surely the medium format stuff) can make enough to please u with the resolution issue. again.. the most important differance to me at least is the essensial way in which the two mediums (digital and film) INTERPRATE AND CAPTURE THE LIGHT... and also true, as thorsten noted... u dont mind about the superb resolutions of film scanners like imacon... imacons best thing is that film becomes LIVE through it.... almost like on light table... "almost though"... about black+white photography.. well - i see it already by now as a dicipline of its own.. so i dont mind what u can do with digital conversions and how less grainy it is or how controlable it is in photoshop... i see on the prints... best prints made digitally in b/w and best prints made in darkroom - the darkroom is totally different look and FEEL.... and totally different approach.... and personally i love it the most... so i mind much less wether pan-f makes better or not than the sensor.. i also mind less wether 800iso digital looks sometimes cleaner than hp5... i do love the grain of hp5.... it is film - it is b/w... about the enlargement... what was true about anaolg photo is about the valid about digital.. that is it. will i get a 22mpix digi back or 33 ??? i dont know... ive been told that 33 gives me more room for enlargement... otherwise they are equally good. so, while most of the time 22 will be enough, the 33 will give the fredom of enlargement wehen needed.. so it is my choice acording to my needs which of then i will get.. i will not look into numbers too much... i will see the prints.. i will eperiment a little and make the choice... also about the enlargement... there is some limit that the film or the digital reaches.. u dont look at it in numbers.. u first ahve to see it in your eyes... then from engenering point of view this can be analized in numbers and maybe even some newer solution can be found.. well analizing and giing solutions - those things is not my job... one more observation... while there is limit of enlargement for appealing "look", i have noticed that when film is enlarged too much it still keeps it look more than digital... in other words... the drop in expected "look" with enlargments beyound "limits" is more steep with digital than with film. but it is not about numbers.. it is more about the construction of the different medium (film construction and sensor) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted October 5, 2006 Share #37 Posted October 5, 2006 I think that when someone asks a technical question, it is more interesting to try to answer than to tell him that his question is irrelevant from an artistic point of view. Because photography is not only art but also has a lot of other usages. And next time someone asks an "artistic" question about composition for instance, should someone come and explain that this is irrelevant from a technical point of view? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
albertwang Posted October 5, 2006 Share #38 Posted October 5, 2006 To get equivalent to Tri-X, probably 6-7 megapixels... To get equivalent to Pan F, probably 24-28 megapixels... Apart from that, it doesn't really matter. Film is good still. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graham_mitchell Posted October 5, 2006 Share #39 Posted October 5, 2006 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. Yes that's true that I am comparing with scanned film but I would argue that >99% of commercial photographs are destined to be scanned. Also I wouldn't agree that a good scanner is a limiting factor and in fact assists greatly in comparing the two media side by side. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 5, 2006 Share #40 Posted October 5, 2006 Well after my DMR , 1dsmKII test i realized one important fact, you can stuff all the pixels you want into a image file and it means absolutely nothing . It is what the sensor does with the pixels is really the bottom line. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.