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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels
Hello again.
Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels. The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was: Short edge of 35mm film: 24 / 25.4 = 0.945" Long edge of 35mm film: 36 / 25.4 = 1.417" Pixel count along the short edge = 0.945 * 2820 = 2664 Pixel count along the long edge = 1.417 * 2820 = 3995 Total pixel count on the scanning area = 2664 * 3995 = 10642680, roughly 10M Now, should this calculation mean that a good slide + scanning with this scanner will be equivalent to shooting with a 10MP full-frame 35mm DSLR ? How would the results compare to the line of current 8MP not-full-frame DSLRs and would results be comparable to those off an EOS 5D (which has a 12.8 MP 35mm full-frame sensor) by any criteria? Best, -arifi |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels
"arifi" schreef in bericht ps.com... Hello again. Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels. The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was: Short edge of 35mm film: 24 / 25.4 = 0.945" Long edge of 35mm film: 36 / 25.4 = 1.417" Pixel count along the short edge = 0.945 * 2820 = 2664 Pixel count along the long edge = 1.417 * 2820 = 3995 Total pixel count on the scanning area = 2664 * 3995 = 10642680, roughly 10M Suppose that your Minolta Dimage Scan Elite produces within your calculation perfect pixels. (They are not). Then you have 10 M pixels for each of the three colors. That works out to be 10 M for R, 10 M for G and 10 M for B. This is 30 M subpixels. The pixel count in a camera starts of with subpixels. 1/2 the pixels are green, 1/4 are Blue, 1/4 are Red. So to get the same number of perfect pixels you would need 3 times (or 4 times) as many pixels in the DSLR. And then the DSLR still can produce more moire on structures because the space between the different colors is devided. (Only one 1/4 of the area is sensitive to red for example, where with the scanner this is often near 100 %, this depends on the design though). So the technical design of the scanner could produce far better results than the DSLR. But there are a lot of limits for the scanner, film or slides in practise do not have the resolution that the scanner is specified for. The scanner probably is not totaly sharp. With desktop scanners I have scanned raisor blades to see how sharp the scanners could scan this, maybe you could come up with a setup to try this with your scanner and probably you'll see that the edge of the totaly sharp raisor blades covers several pixels in width. So if you had totaly sharp slides (which do not exist) and a totaly perfect scanner with your specifications. You would need more than 30 Mp to compete with that setup. ben Now, should this calculation mean that a good slide + scanning with this scanner will be equivalent to shooting with a 10MP full-frame 35mm DSLR ? How would the results compare to the line of current 8MP not-full-frame DSLRs and would results be comparable to those off an EOS 5D (which has a 12.8 MP 35mm full-frame sensor) by any criteria? Best, -arifi |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels
"arifi" wrote: Hello again. Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels. The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was: People will argue, but in real life 35 film _no matter how you scan or print it_ at its very very best captures about 8MP of detail. (Roger Clark, one of the more sensible people here, still has a rather strange appreciation for Velvia 50, which in my experience it's grainier and uglier than Provia 100F, and argues that it's "worth" a lot more MP than I've ever seen from a square mm of film (and I've spent the last four years shooting medium format film while waiting for the 5D, inspecting every frame with a 60x microscope.)) Anyway, in real life, 35mm makes a _nice_ 8x10, but is losing it badly compared to medium format at 11x14. Short edge of 35mm film: 24 / 25.4 = 0.945" Long edge of 35mm film: 36 / 25.4 = 1.417" Pixel count along the short edge = 0.945 * 2820 = 2664 Pixel count along the long edge = 1.417 * 2820 = 3995 Total pixel count on the scanning area = 2664 * 3995 = 10642680, roughly 10M The problem here is that scanned pixels are really really ugly. Incredibly ugly. Here's a page of some of the best scans made by modern equipment. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ Now, should this calculation mean that a good slide + scanning with this scanner will be equivalent to shooting with a 10MP full-frame 35mm DSLR ? How would the results compare to the line of current 8MP not-full-frame DSLRs and would results be comparable to those off an EOS 5D (which has a 12.8 MP 35mm full-frame sensor) by any criteria? The 5D competes with 645 (56 x 42 mm); 35mm isn't even close. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels
arifi, MP is convenient when comparing cameras, but with files what counts is the uncompressed size.With your scanner that will be approx 30mb file. Close to a 10MP camera, But no scanner is perfect, where as your lens - sensor alignment on a camera is close to perfect. Even a well scanned 35mm slide will not equal a camera file in sharpness but it should be better than the camera file in dynamic range. That is why folk just don't copy slides with a DSLR. I'm not going to make what equals what pronouncements. A couple of years ago I was with a group photographing a AAA minor league baseball team. We had to have a team photo for opening day, 4 days hence, cheap guys so they wanted to run their years supply all at once. We shot a Mamiya 645 and a 6mp Kodak 760, one of the owners friends used a Hassleblad. Because of the printers time constraints they used our 6mp image. Nice team pic, better than the year before's, we don't know how that was shot. How did the images compare, the team had enlargements made from a Mamiya and Hassy image to the 20x24 size of the printed team picture. Our digital file printed was way better than the Mamiya file (admittedly an old camera ald lens), the enlarged (photographic print) from the Hassleblad was marginally better than the offset printed digital. The digital file also kept the team to their deadlines, no extra rush fees. Convinced me. A scanner is the best way to reproduce your 35mm slides & negs, can they be as good as digital camera files, probably not. Tom |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"arifi" wrote: Hello again. Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels. The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was: People will argue, but in real life 35 film _no matter how you scan or print it_ at its very very best captures about 8MP of detail. (Roger Clark, one of the more sensible people here, still has a rather strange appreciation for Velvia 50, which in my experience it's grainier and uglier than Provia 100F, and argues that it's "worth" a lot more MP than I've ever seen from a square mm of film (and I've spent the last four years shooting medium format film while waiting for the 5D, inspecting every frame with a 60x microscope.)) David, The technical specifications of velvia show it has higher spatial resolution than provia. Then you mis-characterize my position. Don't confuse spatial resolution with image quality. Fine grained 35mm film has higher spatial resolution than most DSLRs, but film also has much poorer signal-to-noise ratios. Try reading: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html and get beyond Figure 1 (digital megapixel equivalent versus film speed); read the Apparent Image Quality section. There you will see I rate an 8-megapixel DSLR well above both velvia and provia 35mm film. For the OP: see the above page plus: Image Detail (How much detail can you capture and scan?) http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html But note, as above, spatial resolution is only one part of image quality. Also note that the reasonable rating of a scanner ppi is about 2/3 the manufacturer's specification, so 2820 ppi consumer scanner would be equivalent to about 1890 ppi compared to a high end scanner like a drum scan. Roger |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels
"arifi" writes:
Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels. The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was: Short edge of 35mm film: 24 / 25.4 = 0.945" Long edge of 35mm film: 36 / 25.4 = 1.417" Pixel count along the short edge = 0.945 * 2820 = 2664 Pixel count along the long edge = 1.417 * 2820 = 3995 Total pixel count on the scanning area = 2664 * 3995 = 10642680, roughly 10M Now, should this calculation mean that a good slide + scanning with this scanner will be equivalent to shooting with a 10MP full-frame 35mm DSLR ? How would the results compare to the line of current 8MP not-full-frame DSLRs and would results be comparable to those off an EOS 5D (which has a 12.8 MP 35mm full-frame sensor) by any criteria? Digital original pixels are 'worth more' in image quality than scanned pixels -- they're one generation closer to the original, after all. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels
I am not sure of the technical aspects, however I have recently started
scanning my 35mm negatives using a Nikon 4000DPI scanner. I would never be able to use the 100% scan to print, as it just isn't sharp enough (in fact I thought the scans would be sharper than they were), but I would be able to print a 100% photo from my 20D. With the scan, you need to downsize the image to get a decent image. I suppose it is similar to comparing digital camera's by the amount of megapixels. You can have a cheap 6MP point and shoot camera, and an expensive 6MP camera with a decent lens. They are both 6MP, but what is the point of having a sensor that can capture 6MP, when the image reaching the sensor is crap. If you take a photo on a DSLR with no lens attached, the image is still 6MP, but just a big blur. "arifi" wrote in message ps.com... Hello again. Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels. The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was: Short edge of 35mm film: 24 / 25.4 = 0.945" Long edge of 35mm film: 36 / 25.4 = 1.417" Pixel count along the short edge = 0.945 * 2820 = 2664 Pixel count along the long edge = 1.417 * 2820 = 3995 Total pixel count on the scanning area = 2664 * 3995 = 10642680, roughly 10M Now, should this calculation mean that a good slide + scanning with this scanner will be equivalent to shooting with a 10MP full-frame 35mm DSLR ? How would the results compare to the line of current 8MP not-full-frame DSLRs and would results be comparable to those off an EOS 5D (which has a 12.8 MP 35mm full-frame sensor) by any criteria? Best, -arifi |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote: "arifi" wrote: Hello again. Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs. Megapixels. The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was: People will argue, but in real life 35 film _no matter how you scan or print it_ at its very very best captures about 8MP of detail. (Roger Clark, one of the more sensible people here, still has a rather strange appreciation for Velvia 50, which in my experience it's grainier and uglier than Provia 100F, and argues that it's "worth" a lot more MP than I've ever seen from a square mm of film (and I've spent the last four years shooting medium format film while waiting for the 5D, inspecting every frame with a 60x microscope.)) David, The technical specifications of velvia show it has higher spatial resolution than provia. Maybe. But the experience here is that Velvia 50 scans uglier than the "100F" films. Then you mis-characterize my position. Don't confuse spatial resolution with image quality. Fine grained 35mm film has higher spatial resolution than most DSLRs, but film also has much poorer signal-to-noise ratios. Try reading: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html and get beyond Figure 1 (digital megapixel equivalent versus film speed); Oops: you've redone that figure since the last time I looked. Still, I think you are way overstating 35mm Velvia. It really takes 6x7 before you see more detail from film than from 12MP digital. read the Apparent Image Quality section. There you will see I rate an 8-megapixel DSLR well above both velvia and provia 35mm film. Well, if you didn't start out by calling it at 14MP, then I wouldn't grump. The problem is that film has a long "tail" in its response; it can record extremely high contrast detail way out to insane lp/mm levels, but does very badly at lower contrast images. In my (and others) tests of 6x7 Provia vs. the 12MP cameras, 6x7 nails the fine high-contrast detail that the 5D is just beginning to lose it on, but the rest of the image is a toss-up. I've found that for portraits, it is incredibly critical to fill the frame with the subject with film. Standing back a bit to take in some of the context is simply not an option. Because film is so grody for low-contrast parts of the image. In other words, Velvia/Provia are only "14MP" for street signs and license plates. For everything else, they're not even 8MP. Also note that the reasonable rating of a scanner ppi is about 2/3 the manufacturer's specification, so 2820 ppi consumer scanner would be equivalent to about 1890 ppi compared to a high end scanner like a drum scan. I suspect that this rule of thumb, while in the right direction, is a tad too general. I'd guess the 2820 ppi class scanners' practical/apparent resolutions are a lot closer to their nominal values than the 4000 ppi class scanners. This has to be true simply because film begins to break down at anything over an 8x enlargement, so no matter what resolution you scan at, 2400 ppi is about the highest resolution film itself supports _for producing grain-sniffable prints_. Posters on a wall is a different question, of course. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote: The technical specifications of velvia show it has higher spatial resolution than provia. Maybe. But the experience here is that Velvia 50 scans uglier than the "100F" films. Maybe it is your scanner. My experience is just the opposite. Then you mis-characterize my position. Don't confuse spatial resolution with image quality. Fine grained 35mm film has higher spatial resolution than most DSLRs, but film also has much poorer signal-to-noise ratios. Try reading: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html and get beyond Figure 1 (digital megapixel equivalent versus film speed); Oops: you've redone that figure since the last time I looked. Still, I think you are way overstating 35mm Velvia. It really takes 6x7 before you see more detail from film than from 12MP digital. Remember the Figure 1 plot is only spatial resolution, and breaks down into two components: luminance resolution and color resolution. The bottom of the vertical bar for each film is the luminance megapixel equivalent and for Provia 100, that is 8 megapixels. But bayer sensors have lower color resolution, so your quoting the 12 megapixel number is for color resolution. Most of the effect that you see in a typical image is luminance resolution. Then, second, again it depends on your scanner. I used multiple scanners in my research including high-end drum scanners. If you are simply comparing image quality, the higher signal-to-noise of electronic sensors further improves image quality. It takes some effort to separate these effects, and that is what I attempted to do in the article. read the Apparent Image Quality section. There you will see I rate an 8-megapixel DSLR well above both velvia and provia 35mm film. Well, if you didn't start out by calling it at 14MP, then I wouldn't grump. The problem is that film has a long "tail" in its response; it can record extremely high contrast detail way out to insane lp/mm levels, but does very badly at lower contrast images. In my (and others) tests of 6x7 Provia vs. the 12MP cameras, 6x7 nails the fine high-contrast detail that the 5D is just beginning to lose it on, but the rest of the image is a toss-up. I've found that for portraits, it is incredibly critical to fill the frame with the subject with film. Standing back a bit to take in some of the context is simply not an option. Because film is so grody for low-contrast parts of the image. Again you seem focused on Figure 1. Try focusing on the table in the AIQ section. Perhaps I need to make that data into a picture. I'm slowly learning that photographers can't seem to comprehend numbers; they need a picture ;-). In other words, Velvia/Provia are only "14MP" for street signs and license plates. For everything else, they're not even 8MP. And if you looked at the AIQ table, you would see I agree: 35mm Velvia 50 has an AIQ = 14; 8 MPixel DSLR = 38 at ISO 100, over twice as good. Also note that the reasonable rating of a scanner ppi is about 2/3 the manufacturer's specification, so 2820 ppi consumer scanner would be equivalent to about 1890 ppi compared to a high end scanner like a drum scan. I suspect that this rule of thumb, while in the right direction, is a tad too general. I'd guess the 2820 ppi class scanners' practical/apparent resolutions are a lot closer to their nominal values than the 4000 ppi class scanners. I have yet to see a consumer scanner that did better than the 2/3 guideline. The low ppi scanners tend to be made more cheaply, so all I've seen seem the follow the guide. The manufacturers should be required to publish the MTF for their rated PPI. This has to be true simply because film begins to break down at anything over an 8x enlargement, so no matter what resolution you scan at, 2400 ppi is about the highest resolution film itself supports _for producing grain-sniffable prints_. Posters on a wall is a different question, of course. I disagree. I have made 19x24 and 24x36 inch prints (now hanging in offices and galleries) from 35 mm velvia drum-scanned images that pro photographers have asked: "is that medium or large format?" Even at 4000 ppi velvia, Provia and Kodachrome are grain-aliased by the scanner. Velvia and Kodachrome even at 5000 ppi. This means that grain appears enhanced at these ppi. But as one goes higher, the grain aliasing reduces, apparent grain becomes smaller and the image smoother. I've seen 30x40-inch prints of 35mm Kodachrome 25 drum scanned at around 9000 ppi and printed on a Lightjet that I would have sworn was large format (my mouth dropped to the floor). Quality can be had from film, but it comes only with top equipment and a high price. I now only do film in 4x5 now, otherwise I'm all digital, and looking to replace most 4x5 with digital mosaics. Roger Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels
"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote: Maybe. But the experience here is that Velvia 50 scans uglier than the "100F" films. Maybe it is your scanner. My experience is just the opposite. I compare what the scanner gets with what a (cheap) micropscope and an expensive high-power loupe show, and don't see a lot of difference. Velvia 50 is relatively grainy stuff compared to the 100F films. If there's detail captured, it's so hidden in the grain that it's not photographically significant. But we've been through this befo Provia 100F is soft at 13x, but its not ugly, and your graphs of Velvia 50 noise overstate the problem with film noise. Oops: you've redone that figure since the last time I looked. Still, I think you are way overstating 35mm Velvia. It really takes 6x7 before you see more detail from film than from 12MP digital. Remember the Figure 1 plot is only spatial resolution, and breaks down into two components: luminance resolution and color resolution. The bottom of the vertical bar for each film is the luminance megapixel equivalent and for Provia 100, that is 8 megapixels. But bayer sensors have lower color resolution, so your quoting the 12 megapixel number is for color resolution. Most of the effect that you see in a typical image is luminance resolution. Well, yes. The human eye's color resolution is a tiny fraction of its luminance resolution, so you are reporting effects that can't be seen... Then, second, again it depends on your scanner. I used multiple scanners in my research including high-end drum scanners. I've not seen anything anywhere near a factor of two difference in information captured between 4000 ppi Nikon scanners and drum scanners. Of course, the drum scanner fans do, but it looks to me that they're halucinating. read the Apparent Image Quality section. There you will see I rate an 8-megapixel DSLR well above both velvia and provia 35mm film. Well, if you didn't start out by calling it at 14MP, then I wouldn't grump. The problem is that film has a long "tail" in its response; it can record extremely high contrast detail way out to insane lp/mm levels, but does very badly at lower contrast images. In my (and others) tests of 6x7 Provia vs. the 12MP cameras, 6x7 nails the fine high-contrast detail that the 5D is just beginning to lose it on, but the rest of the image is a toss-up. I've found that for portraits, it is incredibly critical to fill the frame with the subject with film. Standing back a bit to take in some of the context is simply not an option. Because film is so grody for low-contrast parts of the image. Again you seem focused on Figure 1. It's the first thing that appears in the article. It's hard not tog. Try focusing on the table in the AIQ section. Perhaps I need to make that data into a picture. I'm slowly learning that photographers can't seem to comprehend numbers; they need a picture ;-). In other words, Velvia/Provia are only "14MP" for street signs and license plates. For everything else, they're not even 8MP. And if you looked at the AIQ table, you would see I agree: 35mm Velvia 50 has an AIQ = 14; 8 MPixel DSLR = 38 at ISO 100, over twice as good. That's more reasonable. SNIP I don't like not being able to walk up to a print and see more detail, and your examples of higher resolution scans didn't convince me that more information was coming off the film at higher resolutions; sure, the grain structure was being resolved better but I thought the claims for more subject detail were problematic. Again, all the experience here is that 13x19 from 6x7 is way better than 11x14 from 35mm. So talking about 24x36 prints from 35mm sounds rather odd to me. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Very Long - How to Tweak the PrintFix Scanner - (Followup to another thread) | BobS | Digital Photography | 7 | January 27th 05 09:32 PM |
Da Yi 6x17 back for 4x5 [Review] | Bandicoot | Large Format Photography Equipment | 8 | January 26th 05 01:04 AM |
8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant | Matt | Digital Photography | 1144 | December 17th 04 09:48 PM |
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs | KM | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 724 | December 7th 04 09:58 AM |
below $1000 film vs digital | Mike Henley | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 182 | June 25th 04 03:37 AM |