graham_mitchell Posted October 5, 2006 Share #41 Posted October 5, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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 I doubt this will happen. If the photosites become too small, then the number of photons hitting each photosite becomes too low and noise goes up dramatically. There are probably articles out there with theoretical limits on the smallest photosite size which can support a given noise limit. No getting around the laws of phyics I think digital will hit a resolution ceiling soon whereby the only way to get more information will be with a bigger sensor. Medium format is yet to have its finest hour Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 5, 2006 Posted October 5, 2006 Hi graham_mitchell, Take a look here How many megapixels are equivalent to film?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
stunsworth Posted October 5, 2006 Share #42 Posted October 5, 2006 How many fine arts are done with 00sable .... The spectator may have little interest in the type of brush used, but I bet the painter did ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted October 5, 2006 Share #43 Posted October 5, 2006 Medium format is yet to have its finest hour But only if the prices come down dramatically from their stratospheric levels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 5, 2006 Share #44 Posted October 5, 2006 Who the f... cares how a lamp post in the upper right 1x1 mm corner of your shot looks? Thorsten-- I agree with your observations in every respect. If this remark refers to my previous mention of the digital sharpening algorithms often applied by the camera or by the user, I still agree: The only question is how the final image looks. To me a white line drawn around contrasting edges in the processing is annoying, and my point was perhaps overly subtle, viz, there is more to the question than just resolution, and each medium has its own characteristics not to be overlooked. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 5, 2006 Share #45 Posted October 5, 2006 Wow! Thank you all for the most interesting discussion. See what you started? --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 5, 2006 Share #46 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. Lee Wai-- Pascal is correct. If you are speaking theoretically, you must know the theory. The reciprocal of the resolution of a system is given by the sum of the reciprocals of the resolutions of its components. For example, if you have a lens that can resolve 100 ll/mm, a film that resolves 100 ll/mm, an enlarging lens that resolves 100 ll/mm, an enlarging paper that resolves 100 ll/mm, and (for simplicity's sake) make a 1:1 enlargement, maximum final resolution is 25 ll/mm. BUT: Improving any ONE of the components will improve the final output. That is, if you put a lens capable of resolving 400 ll/m into the chain, final results will improve EVEN THOUGH the lens's resolution is higher than that of any other component in the system (including the film). The *system itself* sets the limiting resolution, not any one element of the system. Respectfully, --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipotto Posted October 5, 2006 Share #47 Posted October 5, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) 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. Guy, have you considered publishing your Leica DMR vs Canon 1dsMKII? I remember seeing a couple of sample shots from your test, but it would be enjoyable to see it as a whole, along with your comments as a professional who has switched from the 1ds Mark II to the DMR. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 5, 2006 Share #48 Posted October 5, 2006 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. Wai Leong === Wai Leong-- Your argument is completely logical, reasonable and transparent; I used to think the same. Unfortunately, the logic is wrong. See my post above http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/6694-how-many-megapixels-equivalent-film-3.html#post65114. By the way--how should I address you courteously? Wai Lee, Wai Leong etc? Many thanks! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 5, 2006 Share #49 Posted October 5, 2006 Guy, have you considered publishing your Leica DMR vs Canon 1dsMKII?I remember seeing a couple of sample shots from your test, but it would be enjoyable to see it as a whole, along with your comments as a professional who has switched from the 1ds Mark II to the DMR. I thought about it several times to be honest. Issue is now the images from the test itself have crashed off of FM's server . That hurt and I have some images but not all BUT BUT BUT I just committed to the M8, I was on the fence but i just did a horse trade for a Leica 35mm 1.4 ASPH M lens. My first M lens. So are you guys up for a DMR Vs M8 . At least the canon folks won't be bitching:D :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted October 5, 2006 Share #50 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. Victor--the point is well taken; the trouble is that the engineers do consider the numbers, and that is the only way to discuss technical aspects of photography. Your post and those of others make very clearly the point that there is more to the matter than the numbers you and I know. By sheer numbers (resolution, size of sensor) a Canon 5D should outperform the DMR; but in many cases that seems not to be the case. 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) Very good observation! You are right that the effect isn't about numbers per se, but the differences between film construction and sensor construction are engineering parameters, and directly dependent on numbers. That's why we're all having such fun in this thread. --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 5, 2006 Share #51 Posted October 5, 2006 haward - very true... one more thing which is very important... the processing method... now i will try to describe it carefully... i took a very good file of my friend that was done with hassleblad 22 megpix back.. the goal was a high quality print of 20" (inch). now, i ahve noticed clearly that with some processing approach i could reach on that file a very "ORGANIC LOOK" (something that we relate to film based photography). now, one photo was from location (natural daylight) and the other from studio (but without silver umbrelas refelctors etc.. i mean the cleaner light was used). indeed - the hasslebald raw file was capable with some careful attitude to reach a very good file. now... it is very close to the scaned kodak epp (so to spaeck)... but i believe that if that was printed on ilfochrom the differance would be greater in the over all impression. now which one is better is a different question... one thing was clear - with good software work (flex-color and photoshop allows it, and so do silverfast and oxygen) - with good and slightly diferent attitude i could reach a very rich overall imression (means - less plastic look).... it was also clear that digital can sutisfy many needs - including from the artistic point of view.... another intresting observation was that the "film like look" feeling was there after file processing not only on the printed paper, but also on the monitor (cinema apple on gamma 1.8 calibrated of course etc). intrestingly, the reaction from some people who saw it rite on the monitor (people who deal with graphics themselves) had imidiate reaction to it - "how it looks different, like some of your (my) photos or film photos.... so again - processing and editing is very important.. people usualyy automatically tend to the "digitalized look" cause they think it is modern and proffesional.. well - it is modern of course, and generally talking - it is the TREND.. but with good mastery with software different results can be acheived. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted October 5, 2006 Share #52 Posted October 5, 2006 thorsten and graham... about the megapix increase and not relavance of it to the quality of pixel itself... first of - ya - it is also very important the pixel performance... now here one more thing.... with my friend - i have made a comparison - just for the interest.... not fair though from the "rosolution point of view".... he used the hasslebald 22 mpix mack. it was not in my place, so i didnt have my medium, and he hmslef didnt have film to make a more valuable comparison... so it was compared to the fuji provia 100 film with small camera (leica). now we have made almost exact same pic.. a few pics... this is what i have found out, or actually comfirmed my suggestion and feeling i had... 1. digital back was clearly better in terms of resolution and details etc... that was obvious actaully and not fair for comparison since the foramts are different... 2. the digital file, with good processing (by my friend how knows very well how to do it) had no "FEEL OF LIGHT".. i dont really know how to explain it.. but even from the little camera that was evident that the film LOOKED sexier as if there was light on it... note - we have made attempt to come close in "looks".. and i dont talk here about brighness differances.. i just talk about something that the film print RADIATES... it radiates light from it... one photo was done in two sizes - big and small from digial and big and small from film... again.. the clearity and the resolution/details fulliness etc was better on digi - especially on bigger print..... but even on bigger print the film (from small 35mm camera) was with its quality of "LIGHT". if u would put the slide into the projector - the of course there is even bigger difarance in this terms. now - it is clear to me - the value of film is not in numbers.. digital usually wins here, unless u make bigger film formats (espcially the 4x5").. the big diferance is the "LOOK"... film has its look which is richer and which is sexier and it radiates light... also true.. that for many commercial works this differance is less important - cause in most magazins, and most commercial prints u cannot reach "gallery qualities and attention" wether u use film or digital. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted October 5, 2006 Share #53 Posted October 5, 2006 You can't compare film and digital in megapixels... But some things I want to ad: - B/W-photography allows you to use extreme document-films (TP, Imagelink HQ - all about 25ASA), those films are really sharp and nearly grain free (at least compared to ordinary 50-100ASA film). - When you compare film and digital you mostly convert film into digital. By doing that, you're decreasing quality. You need very special equipment (huge Imacons or drum scanners) to capture the whole information of a good Velvia (resolution, DR, noise). Here are some examples: Velvia 50 scanned with Minolta 5400 II at 5400dpi vs. a 12 years old Howtek drum-scanner interpolated to 5400dpi to achieve the same image size (scan resolution was 4000dpi): (also film-flatness becomes an issue, you cannot expect a 5-10€ lens inside your consumer-scanner to capture the whole information of a slide made with a 3000€-Leica-lens...) The second one shows a Velvia 100-scan made with a Imacon Flextight 646 at 6300dpi - not too bad for a x-times compressed jpg... Made with Summilux Asph 35mm (Guy: a look into the future for you ;-) 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=65109'>More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 5, 2006 Share #54 Posted October 5, 2006 I doubt this will happen. I'll bet we'll get 60MP files, even 100MP and above. The known technology will be improved and might very well be replaced by new technologies. One that was mentioned by the former Leica CEO was optical storage. Experiments are ongoing with this as we speak - and with other technologies as well. The reason I will even bet on this is that few months back I got a box of 3,5" floppys - and I hate those bleeping things - which I put onto my Mac so that it could index all the content. While waiting for each of these dinky medias to onload their silly small content one after the other onto my harddrive, I realized that ALL that information contained on ALL those 3,5" floppys could - easily - be on a USB stick these days. Well, even a corner og my SD card in my camera. 5 years of development that is. I think that even today we find it unreal that the press grabbed 1MP Nikon/Kodak cameras few ears ago, paid deerly for them, waited long times for their buffers - and even considered them hi-tech. State of the art. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted October 5, 2006 Share #55 Posted October 5, 2006 The second one shows a Velvia 100-scan made with a Imacon Flextight 646 at 6300dpi - not too bad for a x-times compressed jpg... Made with Summilux Asph 35mm (Guy: a look into the future for you ;-) Looks as if you didn't apply any sharpness on the Imacon scan. Not that you should but it would appear *much* sharper in the small crop if you did. But Imacon definitely do something very right, even it is a digital process. It's like their digital stuff is on the backseat in their philosophy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted October 5, 2006 Share #56 Posted October 5, 2006 our eyes cope with a certain amount of detail the rest is a sales pitch... I keep in smudging with my 00 sable but nobody noticed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg Posted October 5, 2006 Share #57 Posted October 5, 2006 I've sharpened the original for printing a little bit - but due to the compressing and resizing it again and again (I have some trouble - as always - with my software) much of the original look was gone. When I've noticed that, I already uploaded them... Megapixels in the future: Lenses (and the basical technology won't change too much the next decades) are capable of recording about 25MPixels on (36x24mm) - the Leica S1 has this resolution (36mmx36mm) and everything - from focus to the stability of the tripod - was already extremly sensible to failures. We're not talking about theoretical resolution. Even todays 6,8um pitch (DMR, M8) is pretty sensible (DMR-users without absoluty correct installed focus screens experienced that). Cameras will become faster, sensors will become cheaper - but the necessary mechanical and optical quality will be as necessary as today (and will still be expensive). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waileong Posted October 5, 2006 Share #58 Posted October 5, 2006 I can see that you know your formulas and I agree and understand what you mean. However, the posters' question is not "what is the resolution of the system"? Its "how many MP are equivalent to Velvia 100"? Velvia 100 datasheet clearly states 80 lpm. My calculations show about 22 MP. Whether your lens can achieve this resolution, and under what conditions, is a separate matter. As for the resolution of the enlarger lens and paper, which finally leads to the print output, paper of course does not have 100 lpm. Negs need to have 100 lpm because they are designed to be enlarged 8x, 10x, 20x. Paper is the final output, and in fact a rating of 300 dpi (equivalent to 6 lpm?) is enough to show an acceptably sharp image. Wai Leong--Your argument is completely logical, reasonable and transparent; I used to think the same. Unfortunately, the logic is wrong. See my post above http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/6694-how-many-megapixels-equivalent-film-3.html#post65114. By the way--how should I address you courteously? Wai Lee, Wai Leong etc? Many thanks! --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 5, 2006 Share #59 Posted October 5, 2006 George you brought up something that really should be talked about not sure this is the place but i will bring it up anyway. I have discovered this a long time ago with digital and focusing Vs film and focusing. Digital is a much more precise art of focusing , If your slightly off you will know it , film seems you can cheat a little there. i guess some of this is becuase we pixel peep more than we ever even tried to do with film. Also i think there is a technical reason behind this also and my thoery is film has a thickness to the emulsion that let's just say for lack of a better word more depth to it and you can dive in more. A sensor is hard surface that does not penatrate into it's pixels, so critical focusing is harder to achieve. Now i could have worded that wrong or maybe said it wrong because frankly i am no engineer but this just comes from experience from shooting both mediums for a long time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reprobit Posted October 5, 2006 Share #60 Posted October 5, 2006 Kodak did a lot of research and found that 6MP (not interpolated) is good enoug for capturing 24x36mm film. Vice versa we will find that some 8MP cameras (interpolated) are very similar to 24x26mm film. The Leica S1 with 25 Million Pixel is as good as medium format if the lens is a high resolution lens. As soon as a Pixel becomes smaller than 7 micron, the actual lenses are the most critical limitation. Bernd Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.