How many megapixels are equivalent to film?

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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.

 

Hi Guy,

 

It's the former. We look at digital files in much closer detail (100% + on screen) than most of us ever did with film. So one notices small diffferences in focus more readily with a 1Ds file, for example, than with a 135 mm slide.

 

In fact, it's not just focus that we've become more relentless about. All sorts of minor flaws in pictures that largely are ignored in film photography receive all kinds of examination and discussion when they appear in digital files. There is also, what I tend to think of as, a "cult of detail" that has developed where many people seem far more interested in the detail, dynamic range, etc. of a picture than in whether or not it's a strong photograph. So often, the obsession with those technical reproduction qualities is at the heart of a picture discussion. We forget sometimes that a mediocre picture is still mediocre even if it resolves the finest hairs in the nostrils of it's main subject. I tried to go after this mistaken emphasis in the myths article. <G>

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[Advertisement]

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

[waileong]

25 lpm for a print is unbelievable and plenty. Most of us can live with prints of less than 10 lpm. Depends on viewing distance, of course.

 

In any case, Velvia is designed to be projected, not printed. So while there's no enlarger lens involved, there is a projection lens, whose resolution determines the projected quality. However, I don't think the screen carries a limitation in terms of lpm.

 

Wai Leong

===

PS. You can address me as Wai Leong. Thanks.

 

 

Lee Wai--

 

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

[ho_co]

25 lpm for a print is unbelievable and plenty. Most of us can live with prints of less than 10 lpm. Depends on viewing distance, of course.

 

In any case, Velvia is designed to be projected, not printed. So while there's no enlarger lens involved, there is a projection lens, whose resolution determines the projected quality. However, I don't think the screen carries a limitation in terms of lpm.

Wai Leong--

As Sean says just above, we seem to be more critical with pixels than we ever were with film. Theoretically, the screen would carry its own resolution just because it's part of the image chain. But I agree with your implication: You might see someone stand eight inches in front of a screen to evaluate a digital image, but that seldom if ever happened with transparencies.

 

At any rate, seeing all the various ways of looking at this issue has been an eye-opener for me!

 

--HC

[waileong]

That's strange. The screen is just a flat surface. Unlike photographic paper which contains silver and is meant to be developed in chemicals. How does a flat surface onto which one projects an image have a lpm rating? Unless you're projecting images with detail finer than the individual threads or beads which make up the screen surface, but no one does that in reality, because images are typically projected to 5' or larger.

 

Wai Leong

===

Wai Leong--

As Sean says just above, we seem to be more critical with pixels than we ever were with film. Theoretically, the screen would carry its own resolution just because it's part of the image chain. But I agree with your implication: You might see someone stand eight inches in front of a screen to evaluate a digital image, but that seldom if ever happened with transparencies.

 

At any rate, seeing all the various ways of looking at this issue has been an eye-opener for me!

 

--HC

[mwilliamsphotography]

Re: How many megapixels are equivalent to film?

 

None.

 

I'm using all the way up to a 39 meg H2D with Zeiss glass. Really nice pics.

 

Not the same as my film shots with the same lens and scanned on a Imacon 838.

 

People are comparing images on a computer screen, as if that was the criteria.

 

Try as I might, I haven't been able to sell one single image that wasn't destined to be printed ... for a wedding album, to be framed, or for a magazine ad or catalog. The only exception has been stuff for websites ... which you do not need any of this high res gear for ... scanned film or digital.

 

Without exception the film images from respective formats look better when printed. So, it doesn't matter what the math says, it's what my eyes say that counts.

 

Then why shoot digital at all? 'Cause that's the way of the world, and clients expect it. Besides the images still look good ... just not as good.

 

And I'm lazy.

[jrgeoffrion]

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!

 

The difficulty with this question, really resides in your definition of "quality". As I've said many times, I think that Leica is making a business error in not defining "image quality" in the digital era. Most folks (I'm not implying the OP here) think that more pixels are better -- which is not the case since all pixels are not created equal.

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's strange. The screen is just a flat surface. Unlike photographic paper which contains silver and is meant to be developed in chemicals.

Wai Leong--

In the US there were three common types of projection screen for home use: glass beaded, lenticular, and matte white. Matte white rendered far greater detail but with lower reflectivity than either of the others.

 

The fact is that each element of the image chain has its own characteristics, and to calculate final resolution, each must be included. As you said, even the finest screen has texture.

 

I don't intend to be argumentative, and I think we may be a bit off topic.

 

And I don't know enough about digital sensors to be sure that the small amount of optics I know applies there the same way as with film. For example, we now need to look at microlens alignment and pixel separation, and to recognize that a Bayer-pattern sensor uses four elements (RGBG) for a single image point. I learn every day and the more I know, the more I have to learn.

 

The extent of my understanding is that there are a lot of factors involved in both analog and digital imagery, that they are quite different in realization, and that threads like this one present a lot of interesting ideas from a lot of knowledgeable people.

 

Respectfully,

--HC

[ho_co]

Then why shoot digital at all? 'Cause that's the way of the world, and clients expect it...

Why not add, "...and are willing to pay more for it"?

 

--HC

[adan]

I'll add a little more gas - I mean, cool water - to the discussion.

 

First - what resolution film can record (in the megapixel sense) and what is resolution is recoverable from the film (in the megapixel sense) are two different things.

 

Here's a 35mm slide on a light table - 24mm x 36mm, more or less. At that size, no-one can see ANY detail in it. It has to be enlarged via an additional optical system - and even a loupe is a lens. An enlarger requires a lens, a slide projector requires a lens, a scanner requires a lens.

 

And since no lens is perfect, that immediately means that the image, when enlarged, will lose some part of its original resolution. Whether one scans for digital output, or runs the image through a Leica enlarging lens to make an Ilfochrome. Something photographers have had to deal with ever since Fox-Talbot's positive-negative process won out over Daguerre's direct positive process.

 

As with oil underground, the resolution that film can capture only counts insofar as it is recoverable resolution. Which I point out only to explain that I don't fully agree with the idea that just because a scan is digital, it is somehow unworthy for evaluation purposes. it is an enlargement (with the associated flaws) just like any other enlargement.

 

Now as to Rick123's original question, here is a reasonable representation that compares what you asked for (M Leica on Velvia 100F, which has better resolution (IMHO) than either Velvia 100(no F) or Provia 100F) - vs. my Sony R1 10 Mpixel camera.

 

The lenses: Leica 28mm Summicron ASPH, and the Sony's "24-120" zoom at the 28mm equivalent. Both are (IMHO) exceptional lenses, and both were shot at their best apertures for resolution (5.6 for the Leica, f/8 for the Sony)

 

In the attached collage, the pictures touching the centerline are full-resolution details (Sony processed RAW on the left, Velvia scanned at 300 dpi on the right) The two images in the bottom corners are the full frame, and an intermediate-resolution detail to show that both "systems" are capturing a LOT of detail, and keep the viewer oriented.

 

The Leica lens is obvious a bit better in the top pair, which are from near the corner. Car roof racks, earthmover tire tread, tree branches.

 

IMHO - Velvia 100F in the 35mm format probably has an absolute resolution of about 20-22 Mpixels, and a maximum recoverable resolution of about 18 megapixels (a 4000 dpi scan).

 

But at least some of that advantage is cleaner reproduction of the same details, not additional detail. One cannot, for example, count more leaves or flowers or branches in one image over the other. The actual amount of information transmitted ends up very similar.

 

With one caveat - the digital image has more shadow detail than the Velvia. That is not strictly a resolution question. But if I were going to drive into that garage door in the top pair of images, the digital image would warn me that the floor has been demolished into a pile of rubble, something not apparent in the film image.

 

Regardless of who likes which image better, I hope this has been informative.

 

Other than that, I agree with Sean. One makes one's choice, and then one goes and shoots pictures and forgets about it.

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!

[ho_co]

Very nice job, Andy!

 

I'm wondering if about 1/2 stop more exposure on the film side might have helped even the two. The grey cement fence looks a bit darker in the film image, though the roof of the earth mover doesn't look as if it could take more exposure.

 

Also, the Leica image may be showing a little chromatic aberration--the red horizontal stripes along the top edges of the two white cars, the earth mover and perhaps the portable toilet. Obviously could come from the scan or the 28--that's a hellacious enlargement!

 

The current series of Leica lenses has more contrast than traditionally, and seeing this comparison makes me wonder how one of the earlier 28s would have fared.

 

Good work! And as you said, it shows that both lenses are excellent.

 

--HC

[smokysun]

we're basically ten years into the digital area, after one hundred and fifty years of film (and all kinds of film types, papers, printing processes), while film had to compete with a thousand years of painting. digital is something new, developing at incredible speed (even faster than film did). i suspect the answer to this question ten years from now will be quite different than anything we can formulate now.

 

wayne

[waileong]

20-22 MP is a far cry from the 10-12 MP originally put forward by others. And that's for Velvia 100. If we used Pan F+, the figure could be a lot higher.

 

However, the caveat is that in real world shooting, with camera shake, focus errors, subject movement, exposure errors, etc. we'd be lucky to achieve 50% of the theoretical maximum. Hence there is also nothing wrong in the assertion that a 10MP DSLR is more than enough to go head to head with film, and in fact, at high ISO's, will probably win out over film rated at 1600 or 3200.

[spylaw4]

I'm not getting into the nitty-gritty of this discussion, as I don't shoot film (.....yet, but that could change ere long!). However, doesn't it strike you that there are an awful lot of similarities to the vinyl vs. CD arguments that took place when CD's were introduced?

[LKSC]

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

 

Tim,

 

FWIW, my own experience mirrors that of your friend. Ive had the same half dozen slides scanned on a Crosfield 646 drum scanner, scanned again on an Imacon 949, all for Lightjet printing, and then had them hand-printed on Ilfochrome. There were differences between all of them; I would agree that scanners are a limiting factor, but the optically printed Ilfochrome showed the most detail.

[tadas]

However, doesn't it strike you that there are an awful lot of similarities to the vinyl vs. CD arguments that took place when CD's were introduced?

 

Vinyl is still head and shoulders above CD (and higher resolution digital formats - SACD and DVD-A) in terms of rendition of musical information. Sure, sound from CD is cleaner, without background noise of the carrier (as is the output from the digital camera), but what we hear from the vinyl records is so much closer to what we hear from the real instruments. And that is after more than 20 years from the introduction of the CD. This statement is based on my personal profound experience in this field (our company creates and builds CD transports of highest level and we use one of the most resolving audio systems for evaluation of our products), not from what somebody said somewhere on the internet or somewhere else.

 

But photography is very different from the music reproduction...

[Sandokan]

What a load of drivel.

As Rob says ...

 

I like the look of film.

 

I like the instant feedback of digital.

 

Both give me prints of 8x12 inches, which are only acceptable when I hold the camera steady and focus on the right part of the subject.

 

I cant afford a 22 or 45MP camera or back, so if I do get one, it will be what the market has for a few thousand dollars (which by the way is enough to feed a family of 4 for a couple of years in most of the world).

 

Theory-Sheory Stick it in your Reary is about as poetic as I get.

.

[earleygallery]

Re: How many megapixels are equivalent to film?

 

None.

 

I'm using all the way up to a 39 meg H2D with Zeiss glass. Really nice pics.

 

Not the same as my film shots with the same lens and scanned on a Imacon 838.

 

People are comparing images on a computer screen, as if that was the criteria.

 

Try as I might, I haven't been able to sell one single image that wasn't destined to be printed ... for a wedding album, to be framed, or for a magazine ad or catalog. The only exception has been stuff for websites ... which you do not need any of this high res gear for ... scanned film or digital.

 

Without exception the film images from respective formats look better when printed. So, it doesn't matter what the math says, it's what my eyes say that counts.

 

Then why shoot digital at all? 'Cause that's the way of the world, and clients expect it. Besides the images still look good ... just not as good.

 

And I'm lazy.

 

Here here

[Overgaard]

For those interested in a hairy briefing on recent discoveries in optical storage:

[quant-ph/0606076] Polarization squeezing by optical Faraday rotation

 

and more recent development:

 

[quant-ph/0605095] Quantum teleportation between two mesoscopic objects: a photonic pulse and an atomic ensemble

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[earleygallery]

I'm not getting into the nitty-gritty of this discussion, as I don't shoot film (.....yet, but that could change ere long!). However, doesn't it strike you that there are an awful lot of similarities to the vinyl vs. CD arguments that took place when CD's were introduced?

 

Brian - indeed. And like that argument there are different parameters to consider, many links in the chain and the use that it would be put to - Rap music DJ's caused an increase in vinyl sales for example. Audiophile equipement and vynil will still sound better than a CD but of course everyone can get acceptable sound from their budget CD players (dusty, fingerprint smeared records on a cheap deck will sound awful). So CD's are more convenient for the consumer, cheaper to produce and easier to handle logistically for the manufacturer and retailer.

 

Much in the same way that Digital is great for the average consumer, people who cartridge films were made for because they were afraid of loading a 35mm film. They can now check their photo as they take it on the screen, no more chopped off heads, fingers in the way or lens caps left on. Its convenient and quick, and as so many people now share their holiday snaps by e mail, much much cheaper for them.

 

Getting a bit OT sorry. But basically my point is that I see little relevance in these sort of comparisons on the technical minutiae of what are totally different means to an end. Both do a job but very differently, each has their place.

 

Regards

[Rolo]

If you're seeking a high quality print there's always a film solution to beat megapixels. It might be 10x8, 5x4 ..... but film is still king through an optical enlarger, if ultimate quality paper is the goal.

 

I abandoned Leica when my goal every for every frame taken was to print 20x16 landscape images on fibre based paper for personal satisfaction. 5x4 was best and 6x7 was better than 6x6 and only one in fifty were printed. Rarely did anyone else see my work, half weren't interested, and only a few were sold.

 

Times have changed and 72 ppi images dominate in the thousands of image I view a week and 300 ppi images dominate in the hundred+ of images I print each week. One of my printed images have has been handled by a dozen people in 10 years and yet has been viewed on the web

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1977764

 

by 145,560 people in 3 years.

 

The M8 will produce images that satisfy most photographers, but not all.