On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 07:22:31 GMT, "Jeremy"
wrote:


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


Kodak, on one of their web pages, has indicated that 24MP is equivalent to
the potential of 35mm film.

LOL! Given a typical Kodak camera and Kodak colour print film, any
half-decent 2MP digicam ought to beat it.
--

Fat, sugar, salt, beer: the four essentials for a healthy diet.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:31:33 -0000, "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?


Certainly 8 Mp could beat the pants off of 35mm film, if it was 8 Mpx
in a high-end pro camera with a critically fine lens. However, this
simply isn't the case when we speak of "8 Mpx cameras." For that
matter, the D100, D70 etc. easily beat film, but you will be
disappointed with the dinky-sensored consumer cameras that tout 8 Mpx,
since a large portion of their resolution is lost due to bleedover and
other anomalies associated with the tiny sensor size.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:31:33 -0000, "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?


Certainly 8 Mp could beat the pants off of 35mm film, if it was 8 Mpx
in a high-end pro camera with a critically fine lens. However, this
simply isn't the case when we speak of "8 Mpx cameras." For that
matter, the D100, D70 etc. easily beat film, but you will be
disappointed with the dinky-sensored consumer cameras that tout 8 Mpx,
since a large portion of their resolution is lost due to bleedover and
other anomalies associated with the tiny sensor size.

KBob wrote:
Certainly 8 Mp could beat the pants off of 35mm film, if it was 8 Mpx
in a high-end pro camera with a critically fine lens. However, this
simply isn't the case when we speak of "8 Mpx cameras." For that
matter, the D100, D70 etc. easily beat film, but you will be
disappointed with the dinky-sensored consumer cameras that tout 8 Mpx,
since a large portion of their resolution is lost due to bleedover and
other anomalies associated with the tiny sensor size.

Here's a question from another angle (and if it's been thrashed out
before, my apologies): Given a full-frame (24mm x 36mm) sensor, how many
Mpx are required to take full advantage of today's best lenses? Being
retired and now using my gear for pleasure, not for income, I'm kind of
holding out for ~12 Mpx, but that's really just a S.W.A.G. What are the
facts?

--
John Miller
email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm
Surplus (FSoT):
New Conn V1 double trumpet case, no logo
Tektronix 465B oscilloscope
Like-new Nikon n80 body

KBob wrote:
Certainly 8 Mp could beat the pants off of 35mm film, if it was 8 Mpx
in a high-end pro camera with a critically fine lens. However, this
simply isn't the case when we speak of "8 Mpx cameras." For that
matter, the D100, D70 etc. easily beat film, but you will be
disappointed with the dinky-sensored consumer cameras that tout 8 Mpx,
since a large portion of their resolution is lost due to bleedover and
other anomalies associated with the tiny sensor size.

Here's a question from another angle (and if it's been thrashed out
before, my apologies): Given a full-frame (24mm x 36mm) sensor, how many
Mpx are required to take full advantage of today's best lenses? Being
retired and now using my gear for pleasure, not for income, I'm kind of
holding out for ~12 Mpx, but that's really just a S.W.A.G. What are the
facts?

--
John Miller
email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm
Surplus (FSoT):
New Conn V1 double trumpet case, no logo
Tektronix 465B oscilloscope
Like-new Nikon n80 body

In message ,
John Miller wrote:

Here's a question from another angle (and if it's been thrashed out
before, my apologies): Given a full-frame (24mm x 36mm) sensor, how many
Mpx are required to take full advantage of today's best lenses? Being
retired and now using my gear for pleasure, not for income, I'm kind of
holding out for ~12 Mpx, but that's really just a S.W.A.G. What are the
facts?

Well, with the sharpest lens I own, the Tamron 9mm f/2.8 Di macro, I can
resolve as well (obviously with slightly lower pixel-level contrast)
with my Canon 20D, with a 2x TC, as I can without it (MTF curves limited
by sensor, not lens). Doing the math for full frame,
(1.6^2)*(2^2)*8.2MP = 84MP. That is, an 84MP full-frame sensor of the
same quality scaled down would resolve as least as good without the
teleconverter as the 20D does with it, in the center crop.
--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
John Miller wrote:

Here's a question from another angle (and if it's been thrashed out
before, my apologies): Given a full-frame (24mm x 36mm) sensor, how many
Mpx are required to take full advantage of today's best lenses? Being
retired and now using my gear for pleasure, not for income, I'm kind of
holding out for ~12 Mpx, but that's really just a S.W.A.G. What are the
facts?

Well, with the sharpest lens I own, the Tamron 9mm f/2.8 Di macro, I can
resolve as well (obviously with slightly lower pixel-level contrast)
with my Canon 20D, with a 2x TC, as I can without it (MTF curves limited
by sensor, not lens). Doing the math for full frame,
(1.6^2)*(2^2)*8.2MP = 84MP. That is, an 84MP full-frame sensor of the
same quality scaled down would resolve as least as good without the
teleconverter as the 20D does with it, in the center crop.
--


John P Sheehy

I seems sensible that 24MP may be required to retain most of the noticeable
information that 35mm film has, but that isn't to say 24MP file from a film
scan is the same as 24MP image from a 24MP array of CCDS, where there is
more information per pixel. For a demonstration of this, see the link I
have put at the end..

A direct comparison is going to be difficult to be possible due to
incongruence of grain and pixel. So I ask the question the other way
round...

*What is the equivalent film size (i.e. aps, 35mm, 120?) for a 12MP image
from a canon DSLR?*

Wouldn't be surprised if it were large format...

Duncan.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
....Go right down to the bottom where 10D is compared to 35mm. You probably
need to load into Photoshop to compare. Notice that the 35mm scan is a
larger image - it certainly contains more detail, and yet, the 10D image
appears to be more economical with pixels, presumably because the image in
the first place was designed for a pixelated world... It's also interesting
to note the decreased noise in the 10D image (due to noise reduction, I am
sure) and the apparently better white balance. Overall a cleaner look, but
not one is therefore more accurate.


"Jeremy" wrote in message
nk.net...

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


Kodak, on one of their web pages, has indicated that 24MP is equivalent to
the potential of 35mm film.

This is just in theory. I have a 2.3 MP digicam that produces very fine
images, when printed by OFOTO.

It is all relative.

I seems sensible that 24MP may be required to retain most of the noticeable
information that 35mm film has, but that isn't to say 24MP file from a film
scan is the same as 24MP image from a 24MP array of CCDS, where there is
more information per pixel. For a demonstration of this, see the link I
have put at the end..

A direct comparison is going to be difficult to be possible due to
incongruence of grain and pixel. So I ask the question the other way
round...

*What is the equivalent film size (i.e. aps, 35mm, 120?) for a 12MP image
from a canon DSLR?*

Wouldn't be surprised if it were large format...

Duncan.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
....Go right down to the bottom where 10D is compared to 35mm. You probably
need to load into Photoshop to compare. Notice that the 35mm scan is a
larger image - it certainly contains more detail, and yet, the 10D image
appears to be more economical with pixels, presumably because the image in
the first place was designed for a pixelated world... It's also interesting
to note the decreased noise in the 10D image (due to noise reduction, I am
sure) and the apparently better white balance. Overall a cleaner look, but
not one is therefore more accurate.


"Jeremy" wrote in message
nk.net...

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


Kodak, on one of their web pages, has indicated that 24MP is equivalent to
the potential of 35mm film.

This is just in theory. I have a 2.3 MP digicam that produces very fine
images, when printed by OFOTO.

It is all relative.

Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi
film/slide
scanners?

A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per
negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice
5x7.
The 4800 dpi scanners will let you print a nice 14x20. When 9600 DPI
scanners arrive, the prints you can get from a negative/slide will be almost
life size. Why? Because the resolution stored in a sharp photo is
incredible,
and good scanners are able to capture more and more of it.

A 4800 DPI Scanner gets you about 128Mb per shot. Any 128Mb
Digital cameras out there? Forget about 512Mb cameras (which
would be needed to keep up with 9600 DPI scanners).

Even high end digital cameras (within reach of most of use) are still
stretching it to put out a good 8x10. When Digital cameras, if ever,
produce more resolution than the best available 35mm scanner, then
perhaps the tide will have turned. We are a long way from that day.

Regards,

Beau


"KBob" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:31:33 -0000, "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?


Certainly 8 Mp could beat the pants off of 35mm film, if it was 8 Mpx
in a high-end pro camera with a critically fine lens. However, this
simply isn't the case when we speak of "8 Mpx cameras." For that
matter, the D100, D70 etc. easily beat film, but you will be
disappointed with the dinky-sensored consumer cameras that tout 8 Mpx,
since a large portion of their resolution is lost due to bleedover and
other anomalies associated with the tiny sensor size.