8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

"Dps" servis*REMOVE wrote in message ...
I scan 35mm at 40+ Mp. But I think the equivalent in terms of ISO100 grain
is 20Mp, I am not sure though...


"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?


It's the difference to me between analogue and digital music, you know
the music is stepped, and so with b/w film photos there are infinite
shades of grey which no amount of easy-to-store digital can carry,
even if it appears to be there! And darkroom dodging never looks
anything like as dodgy as photoshop dodging, imho!

I have not done it ....but have looked at some slides in microscope where a
calculated
lp/mm was calculated. I got the information that kodachrome 25 should be
able to resolve
250 lp/mm .....from a person which normally gives reliable information :-)
(not seen it on paper).
Equipment used was an OM-4 with a selected 50/1.8 (a "lucky" one....out of
many).

What does Fuji say about Velvia 100F?

Max

"Stephen H. Westin" skrev i en
meddelelse ...
"MXP" writes:

In the old Kodachrome 25 days it was possible to put down 200 lp/mm
on the film.

When did those days end? The Kodachrome data sheet as of December,
2000 had Kodachrome 25 Professional (PKM) down to 10% MTF at 70
cycles/mm. Presumably rather lower than that at 200. Assuming, of
course, that you could produce 200 cycles at the image plane, which
isn't at all easy. Ever notice that the highest frequency on lens MTF
charts seems to be 40 cycles?

snip

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

In the old Kodachrome 25 days it was possible to put down 200 lp/mm
on the film.

When did those days end? The Kodachrome data sheet as of December,
2000 had Kodachrome 25 Professional (PKM) down to 10% MTF at 70
cycles/mm. Presumably rather lower than that at 200.

From: "MXP"

I have not done it ....but have looked at some slides in microscope where a
calculated lp/mm was calculated. I got the information that kodachrome 25
should be able to resolve 250 lp/mm .....from a person which normally gives
reliable information :-)

What does Fuji say about Velvia 100F?

I'm pretty sure Velvia (50) was rated at 160 lp/mm for the high contrast target
and K-25 was rated at 125 lp/mm. As I remember it these were the "official"
data sheet numbers, obtained by actually shooting the films instead of looking
at them on a microscope.

"MXP" writes:

I have not done it ....but have looked at some slides in microscope where a
calculated
lp/mm was calculated. I got the information that kodachrome 25 should be
able to resolve
250 lp/mm .....from a person which normally gives reliable information :-)
(not seen it on paper).
Equipment used was an OM-4 with a selected 50/1.8 (a "lucky" one....out of
many).

What does Fuji say about Velvia 100F?

Well, Velvia RVP (ISO 50) seems to be a bit over 30% at 70 cycles.
But find out for yourself at
http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductsFilm.jsp.
For Kodak, http://www.kodak.com/go/portra,
http://www.kodak.com/go/ektachrome, etc.

snip

--
-Stephen H. Westin
Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not
represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors.

Annika1980 wrote:



Was that done with GIMP?

I think you need some time with your bible thumper friend...


--
-- 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.

[follow-ups set]

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Matt wrote:
I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
film quality?

This would imply that you when dooing stright scans, you don't need
resolutions above 2700dpi or so - which is not true. Plenty of detail
remains unseen at that level.


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


Neither.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:48:31 +0000, Carl wrote:

Owamanga wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:19:38 +0100, 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.

Lourens


I've calculated it to be exactly 7.445239 Mpixels but my methods are
secret. Not many people expected this because it turns out to be an
odd number.

--
Owamanga!
And your methods are secret because...?

They can't be disproved that way.

--

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

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...

http://www.btinternet.com/~mcsalty//...c/disabled.jpg ...
amazing.

Cheers. And thanks for searching through all of my sites to find it, but i'm
curious; of all those shots, why choose this sample?

Because he was just being a prick. Nothing more, nothing less.

"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.

friend® wrote:
Chris,
I like your comparison, right to the point. May I use it as mine?


: )

Be my guest!








On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:32:32 +0100, Chris Loffredo
wrote:

*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?
*
*
*
*It's like saying that playing a Mp3 file on a portable device is the
*same as listening to the original high quality recording on a high-end
*stereo: The basic measurements are the same (frequency response, s/n
*ratio), but does it sound the same?
*
*Some people might not notice any difference, especially if they only
*listen to electronic or synthesized nusic.
*Others will hear a great difference, and consider the Mp3 as the audio
*equivalent of eating rancid butter.
*
*So it all comes down to your needs, perceptions and tastes.