If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I need to transfer my digital files to 35mm slides and negatives output and other film format outputs? | Chris | Digital Photography | 5 | September 25th 04 07:43 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 274 | July 30th 04 12:26 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |