8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant
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 ,
"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? what 35mm are you referring to? A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it? Lourens |
In article ,
"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? what 35mm are you referring to? A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it? Lourens |
It actually comes down to "pixel" size. The smallest unit to record image
data. Colour film can typically record information down to about 60lines pairs/mm which comes out to 120 "pixels" per mm. The 8mp is really not relevant. It's the CCD array pixel size. The Canon 20D (an 8 Mp camera) has a pixel size of 6.5 microns. That equates to 156 "pixels" per mm. The trouble is, they are not full frame. So you can use more "pixels" with film to record the same picture. That's where digital are currently behind. The Canon 20D array is only 62% (1.6X multiplier) of the width of a 35mm frame. That basically means a equivalent "pixel" size of 97 "pixels" per mm. Still way off film resolution. Noise is also an issue (as is dynamic range), but most digital cameras over filter an image. Using a film scanner and a noise reduction algorithm (as is applied in a digital camera), you can come pretty close to the same noise floor. When digital goes full frame for non-pro cameras, then digital will be ahead. Phil Fairman "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? |
Huh? 35mm is a size - 35mm is 35mm. :) 6MP is considered approximately
equivalent, so 8MP probably exceeds 35mm in terms of resolution. The OP referred to print quality...you just brought up the idea of resolution. Two different things. |
"Lourens Smak" wrote in message
... In article , "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? what 35mm are you referring to? A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it? Lourens My own film/digital comparisons hit an early snag when I couldn't find the CF slot on my FM3a. I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never saw a single pixel... What am I doing wrong? -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
"Lourens Smak" wrote in message
... In article , "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? what 35mm are you referring to? A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it? Lourens My own film/digital comparisons hit an early snag when I couldn't find the CF slot on my FM3a. I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never saw a single pixel... What am I doing wrong? -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
"Martin Francis" wrote in message ... "Lourens Smak" wrote in message ... In article , "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? what 35mm are you referring to? A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it? Lourens My own film/digital comparisons hit an early snag when I couldn't find the CF slot on my FM3a. I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never saw a single pixel... What am I doing wrong? Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is anything to go by. |
"Martin Francis" wrote in message ... "Lourens Smak" wrote in message ... In article , "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? what 35mm are you referring to? A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it? Lourens My own film/digital comparisons hit an early snag when I couldn't find the CF slot on my FM3a. I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never saw a single pixel... What am I doing wrong? Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is anything to go by. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com