Matt wrote:

I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
film quality?

Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they
the equivalent to 35mm?

As digital has no 'grain' per se, they do produce very clean images up to about
15 x 10 (inches).

Film resolves higher than an 8 mpix sensor. However it is noisier than a
digital image. Decent prints up to about 24 x 16 are quite possible. I
recently finished some scans from Kodachrome 25 for a friend. Considering the
slow film and the shots are handheld, the detail is very good.

The scans are 7256 x 4880 ( 35 MPix) (so a print at 300 dpi will work out to
about 24x36) which is how he's ordering the prints for 3 of them. I'm sure an 8
Mpix would not do nearly as well... and if my friend had used a tripod, well...

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI gallery]: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- [SI rulz]: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Matt wrote:

I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
film quality?

Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they
the equivalent to 35mm?

As digital has no 'grain' per se, they do produce very clean images up to about
15 x 10 (inches).

Film resolves higher than an 8 mpix sensor. However it is noisier than a
digital image. Decent prints up to about 24 x 16 are quite possible. I
recently finished some scans from Kodachrome 25 for a friend. Considering the
slow film and the shots are handheld, the detail is very good.

The scans are 7256 x 4880 ( 35 MPix) (so a print at 300 dpi will work out to
about 24x36) which is how he's ordering the prints for 3 of them. I'm sure an 8
Mpix would not do nearly as well... and if my friend had used a tripod, well...

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI gallery]: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- [SI rulz]: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

They are in the same range today. I still give most film an edge at
8MP. The quality of an image from a high quality camera vs a low quality
one will not be equal nor will images from the best 35mm film - camera
combination equal the quality of the worse. The ranges overlap. In
addition you are really talking apples and oranges so there can not be a
direct comparison.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


"Matt" wrote in message
...
I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
film quality?

Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they
the equivalent to 35mm?

They are in the same range today. I still give most film an edge at
8MP. The quality of an image from a high quality camera vs a low quality
one will not be equal nor will images from the best 35mm film - camera
combination equal the quality of the worse. The ranges overlap. In
addition you are really talking apples and oranges so there can not be a
direct comparison.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


"Matt" wrote in message
...
I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
film quality?

Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution? Are they
the equivalent to 35mm?

In article , Mike Kohary wrote:

35mm is a size - 35mm is 35mm. :) 6MP is considered approximately
equivalent, so 8MP probably exceeds 35mm in terms of resolution.

Not slow slide film it doesn't, but image quality is about a lot more than
resolution.

Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
anything to go by.


Yep...as far as "being funny" he will have to get by on his looks.

Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
anything to go by.


Yep...as far as "being funny" he will have to get by on his looks.

Bill Hilton wrote:
From: "Matt"

I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to
35mm film quality?

A dSLR like the Canon 1D Mark II with 8 Mpixels and a large sensor
seems to produce better large prints for me than ASA 100 speed Provia
100 F or Velvia scanned with a 4,000 dpi scanner. I'm getting 16x20"
prints from the 1D that are better than any prints that size I've
gotten with even Velvia 50.

But 8 Mpix from a smaller sensor camera might give different results,
so "it depends" on where the 8 Mpixels came from and what kind of
film you are using for your comparison.

Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution?

No, fine grained film still does better at resolving lines on test
targets, yet the digital prints look better ... how? Because of the
lack of apparent grain. Digital simply blows up better than film.

Are they the equivalent to 35mm?

Download some Mark II sample images from the Canon site and resize
them carefully and print them to see for yourself, though these jpegs
aren't as smooth as RAW file conversions.

Where does the 16.7MP full frame Canon EOS1Ds Mk II fit into this
discussion?

From: "PhotoMan"

Where does the 16.7MP full frame Canon EOS1Ds Mk II fit into this
discussion?

He asked about 8 Mpix so that's what we answered to ... I have the 1Ds, which
has 11 Mpixels and is full-frame, and prints from it are much better than
anything I can get from 35 mm, not too far from what I get with scanned 645
medium format film. So 16 Mpix would only be better ...

Harvey wrote:



Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
anything to go by.

OTOH Martin is pretty accomplished photog which counts more around here...


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI gallery]: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- [SI rulz]: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.