8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

"Donald Brummel" wrote in message
ink.net...
Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi
film/slide
scanners?

Maybe the 100 skillion slides that have already been taken in years past
have something to do with it........

"Donald Brummel" wrote in message
ink.net...
Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi
film/slide
scanners?

Maybe the 100 skillion slides that have already been taken in years past
have something to do with it........

Larry wrote:

I use an 8mp digital all the time and can say this with confidence:

Is it handier? YES
Is it easier? after the initial learning curve YES
Does it match 35mm resolution? NO

The last statement is true, but only, of course, if you are talking
about enlarging each image past a certain point. I don't think it's
necessarily easy to distinguish a difference between the two kinds of
images - film and 35mm - if both pictures are reasonably small.

That's why my two puny 5 mp cameras are more than up to the task of
making photographs suitable for publication, as long as the size of the
pictures don't go above 8x6 inches (at 300dpi). However, I've upsized
pictures from these cameras to will create suitable 8.5x11 inch photos
(suitable in the sense they can be used for publication in a reasonably
high quality magazine or book).

Most of my digital photographs are for the Web, and sometimes I'm lucky
enough to have them published, usually no larger than 8.5x11 inches. The
photos look pretty good when digitally projected onto a large screen,
too. That's why I now seldom use my 35mm cameras. I still enjoy making
photos with my ancient Rolleiflex cameras.

Dave

http://www.idrivebackroads.com

Larry wrote:

I use an 8mp digital all the time and can say this with confidence:

Is it handier? YES
Is it easier? after the initial learning curve YES
Does it match 35mm resolution? NO

The last statement is true, but only, of course, if you are talking
about enlarging each image past a certain point. I don't think it's
necessarily easy to distinguish a difference between the two kinds of
images - film and 35mm - if both pictures are reasonably small.

That's why my two puny 5 mp cameras are more than up to the task of
making photographs suitable for publication, as long as the size of the
pictures don't go above 8x6 inches (at 300dpi). However, I've upsized
pictures from these cameras to will create suitable 8.5x11 inch photos
(suitable in the sense they can be used for publication in a reasonably
high quality magazine or book).

Most of my digital photographs are for the Web, and sometimes I'm lucky
enough to have them published, usually no larger than 8.5x11 inches. The
photos look pretty good when digitally projected onto a large screen,
too. That's why I now seldom use my 35mm cameras. I still enjoy making
photos with my ancient Rolleiflex cameras.

Dave

http://www.idrivebackroads.com

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:49 GMT, "Fitpix"
wrote:

You may be able to say it with confidence, but your equipment's
limitations curtail its veracity, as you note in your last paragraph.
Some digital equipment at 8mp, for one reason or another, won't equal the
best of film. Some will, and in some uses, possibly exceed it. I get
better 16x20 images from my 20D than I did from my 1n with Ilford XP-2, a
400 ISO film. Will I get better 16x20s than from Ektar 25? I don't know,
since I can't make that comparison.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Ektar 25! Oh how I miss thee! Love my 20D but have a moving water fetish
that ISO 25 was just perfect for!

Do you know, I never thought of that! It's quite a big failing of
digital cameras; not bieng able to 'speed-vary' the CCD.
--

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

Steve Evans wrote:
tar 25! Oh how I miss thee! Love my 20D but have a moving water fetish
that ISO 25 was just perfect for!


Do you know, I never thought of that! It's quite a big failing of
digital cameras; not bieng able to 'speed-vary' the CCD.

But you can... And if you can't get the "ISO/DIN" down low enough then
you can always do what film based photographers have been doing for
decades and use neutral density filters. You can easily take it down by
as much as another 5 stops that way. A Nikon D70 won't drop lower than
ISO/DIN 200, so if working at f22 or f32 you could add a 3 stop ND
filter which would have you operating on the same exposure basis (though
nowhere near the same image quality) as an ISO/DIN 25 slide film.

Steve Evans wrote:
tar 25! Oh how I miss thee! Love my 20D but have a moving water fetish
that ISO 25 was just perfect for!


Do you know, I never thought of that! It's quite a big failing of
digital cameras; not bieng able to 'speed-vary' the CCD.

But you can... And if you can't get the "ISO/DIN" down low enough then
you can always do what film based photographers have been doing for
decades and use neutral density filters. You can easily take it down by
as much as another 5 stops that way. A Nikon D70 won't drop lower than
ISO/DIN 200, so if working at f22 or f32 you could add a 3 stop ND
filter which would have you operating on the same exposure basis (though
nowhere near the same image quality) as an ISO/DIN 25 slide film.

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
Lourens Smak wrote:
In article , "Mike Kohary"
wrote:

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

Well, the actual resolution would depend a LOT on the lens used, for
example. (with both images). 35mm = 6MP is very simplistic.

I agree, it is simplistic, but there's no way to directly compare the two
anyway. We're kind of guessing subjectively with our eyes, and I think
the
general consensus these days is that 6MP or thereabouts is
indistinguishable
from 35mm.

But you're wrong on the resolution thing. 6MP = 6 million pixels, period.
The lens may make a difference in the sharpness or quality of the picture,
but it will neither reduce nor enlarge the number of pixels that result.

You are thinking only in terms of resolution as defined by pixel count.
Ther IS such a thing as measuring a lens' ability to resolve, and it
therefore does have an effect on resolution...just not the number of pixels.

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
Lourens Smak wrote:
In article , "Mike Kohary"
wrote:

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

Well, the actual resolution would depend a LOT on the lens used, for
example. (with both images). 35mm = 6MP is very simplistic.

I agree, it is simplistic, but there's no way to directly compare the two
anyway. We're kind of guessing subjectively with our eyes, and I think
the
general consensus these days is that 6MP or thereabouts is
indistinguishable
from 35mm.

But you're wrong on the resolution thing. 6MP = 6 million pixels, period.
The lens may make a difference in the sharpness or quality of the picture,
but it will neither reduce nor enlarge the number of pixels that result.

You are thinking only in terms of resolution as defined by pixel count.
Ther IS such a thing as measuring a lens' ability to resolve, and it
therefore does have an effect on resolution...just not the number of pixels.

Mike Kohary wrote:

Stephen H. Westin wrote:

Lourens Smak writes:


In article , "Mike Kohary"
wrote:


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

Well, the actual resolution would depend a LOT on the lens used, for
example. (with both images). 35mm = 6MP is very simplistic.

Yes. In fact, it's a foolish thing to say.


It's not. It's a subjective evaluation, and is widely agreed upon. Unless
you have some brilliant method of direct comparison that no one else on the
planet has thought of to this point, I'd suggest you keep your rudeness to
yourself.

When people say is film better than digital and then simply conclude
yes or no just illustrates their lack of knowledge of film
characteristics. Every film has a different resolution, and
grain (which translates to noise in the image).
ISO 100 speed color 35mm films approximately match 6-megapixel
DSLR bayer sensor digital cameras in terms of spatial information.
Slow speed film like 35mm Fujichrome Velvia are about 16 megapixel equivalent.
ISO 1600 film, like Provia 1600 rates only 3 megapixels equivalent.
Here is a summary of film versus digital:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

Here are more details, including equations and more film
(35mm, medium, large) formats:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...digital.1.html

And then if you are still interested, here are tests of scanning
(consumer scanners to drum scans) where some of the data
for the above conclusions came from:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html

Another issue is dynamic range. There is an
urban legend that current DSLRs will generally give
you about as much dynamic range as slide film, maybe
about 6 stops. This is incorrect. For example,
the Canon 10D tests at about 11 stops:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange

Electronic sensors have a much higher signal to noise than film,
and have excellent dynamic range. The problem is clipping the
highlights. If you expose correctly that is not a problem, but
light meters do not always get it right.

This page compares the transfer functions of digital,
slide film, and print film:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
Note that the print and slide films tested have many stops
less dynamic range than a DSLR.

Finally, signal-to-noise is much higher with DSLRs than
with film. See the above page as well as:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/d...ignal.to.noise
DSLRs like the Canon 1D Mark II are essentially photon
noise limited. It doesn't get any better than that.

Roger Clark
Photos, other digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com