Mega pix & 35mm

Has anyone actually worked out the equivalent (roughly - obviously)
resolutions between good 35mm film and the megapixel count of the
average digital camera?
If we knew roughly what x megapixel count related to y ISO I for one
wouldn't be fretting over whether to spend a couple of grand on a new
toy or fixing my gable-end (that's the side of the house for you Yanks
out there ;-) ).

Anyone got any ideas ?

Chris

It has been done and discussed. Try a Google search.

Phil

Chris A wrote:

Has anyone actually worked out the equivalent (roughly - obviously)
resolutions between good 35mm film and the megapixel count of the
average digital camera?
If we knew roughly what x megapixel count related to y ISO I for one
wouldn't be fretting over whether to spend a couple of grand on a new
toy or fixing my gable-end (that's the side of the house for you Yanks
out there ;-) ).

Anyone got any ideas ?

Chris

"Chris A" wrote in message
om...
Has anyone actually worked out the equivalent (roughly - obviously)
resolutions between good 35mm film and the megapixel count of the
average digital camera?
If we knew roughly what x megapixel count related to y ISO I for one
wouldn't be fretting over whether to spend a couple of grand on a new
toy or fixing my gable-end (that's the side of the house for you Yanks
out there ;-) ).

Anyone got any ideas ?

I tried counting pixels on a frame of 35mm film but my microscope got swiped
by a swarthy looking man of black beard and West Country dialect, who
murmured something about angels and pinheads.

--
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...."

I remember it being about 10 Mpxls. It came from estimating the resolution of
a good slow film, I believe.

Hack
--//--

Chris A wrote:

Has anyone actually worked out the equivalent (roughly - obviously)
resolutions between good 35mm film and the megapixel count of the
average digital camera?
If we knew roughly what x megapixel count related to y ISO I for one
wouldn't be fretting over whether to spend a couple of grand on a new
toy or fixing my gable-end (that's the side of the house for you Yanks
out there ;-) ).

Anyone got any ideas ?

Chris

See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

and all the details at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail

Roger

On 23 Jun 2004 15:17:56 -0700, (Chris A) wrote:

Has anyone actually worked out the equivalent (roughly - obviously)
resolutions between good 35mm film and the megapixel count of the
average digital camera?
If we knew roughly what x megapixel count related to y ISO I for one
wouldn't be fretting over whether to spend a couple of grand on a new
toy or fixing my gable-end (that's the side of the house for you Yanks
out there ;-) ).

Anyone got any ideas ?

Chris

Figuring that out may not be of much help. I used to scan slides into my
computer at 1.5m pixels, because that was what I found to be the best with my
Canon scanner. I found the quality to be fairly poor, but is that the scanner or
the old slides? I also tried scanning prints but they were terrible. Looking at
them with a magnifier proved that the prints WERE terrible!

So maybe you should consider all of the angles... film may have a high res but
is it available to you? If you get prints, will they be done well or be
drugstore crap?

I have found a 5m or 6m camera has all the resolution I need - and that's what
is ultimately important! And the convenience far out weighs any other
consideration!

"Chris A" wrote in message
om...
Has anyone actually worked out the equivalent (roughly - obviously)
resolutions between good 35mm film and the megapixel count of the
average digital camera?
If we knew roughly what x megapixel count related to y ISO I for one
wouldn't be fretting over whether to spend a couple of grand on a new
toy or fixing my gable-end (that's the side of the house for you Yanks
out there ;-) ).

Anyone got any ideas ?

Chris

When Kodak brought out their 13 Mp camera, they announced that it matches 35
mm resolution. The resolution limitation in film is the scattering of light
by the silver halide particles (halation). Film has a black backing that
come off in the developer. It keeps most of the light that passes through
the emulsion from scattering back, but it can't stop scatering of the
incoming light.

"Chris A" wrote in message
om...
Has anyone actually worked out the equivalent (roughly - obviously)
resolutions between good 35mm film and the megapixel count of the
average digital camera?
If we knew roughly what x megapixel count related to y ISO I for one
wouldn't be fretting over whether to spend a couple of grand on a new
toy or fixing my gable-end (that's the side of the house for you Yanks
out there ;-) ).

Anyone got any ideas ?

Chris

Check the Google archives for the gory details (and flame wars). Here
is the readers digest version:

6 MP provides roughly equivalent overall quality to 35 mm film. The
digital image will not have resolution as good as 35mm film, but it will be
reasonably free of graininess.
35 MP will record all of the information that the best 35mm film can
record.

"Ron Andrews" wrote:
Chris

Check the Google archives for the gory details (and flame wars). Here
is the readers digest version:

6 MP provides roughly equivalent overall quality to 35 mm film. The
digital image will not have resolution as good as 35mm film, but it will
be reasonably free of graininess.

I'd say: ISO 50 or 100 professional films with best technique will
_slightly_ edge out* either 6MP dSLR digital or 8MP consumer digital. If you
need ISO 400 or higher, one is far better off with a 6MP dSLR.

*: Not enough to make film worth the bother, IMHO.

35 MP will record all of the information that the best 35mm
film can record.

I'd say: 11MP 1Ds images are better than anything anyone has ever seen from
35mm. (A bit over the top, but basically the right idea: the 1Ds is a lot
closer to 645 than it is to 35mm.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan