8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

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!

"Gene Palmiter" wrote in message
news:Xibnd.6301$%M4.3147@trndny08...
Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
anything to go by.


Yep...as far as "being funny" he will have to get by on his looks.

Awww, ****....

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/22959641

--
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...."

"Harvey" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Harvey wrote:



Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
anything to go by.

OTOH Martin is pretty accomplished photog which counts more around
here...


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?

--
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...."

Does it matter?


"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...

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?

--
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...."

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...?

Owamanga wrote:

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.

It's odd alright.


--
-- 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.

Martin Francis wrote:
"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?


Really, really difficult area- comparing film to digital inevitably means
scanning film, by which point it is really a comparison of digital capture
media. IME, desktop film scanners are largely terrible.

Digital is in a league of it's own. Not to say a better or worse league,
just different. Sadly, the way it's going, the digital league is seemingly
more comparable (numbers-wise) to the NFL, compared to film's World
Tiddlywinks Championship.

I'd say that Film and digital are both in leagues of their own. I'm not
sure how you compare. Film is not necessarily displayed at its best when
scanned and subsequently viewed on screen. Digital is not necessarily
displayed at it's absolute best when printed using inkjet technology,
for example.

Therein lies the quandary. What is needed is a common point of contact
where either there is an equal degree of compromise for the two media,
or a point of contact where neither needs to compromise (unlikely).

Alternatively we could all stop bitching about whose media is better
than whose and just accept they are different, and love them for their
differences. Then maybe we could get past the endless cycle of the same
threads appearing every few weeks.

"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.

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.

--
-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.

From: "Harvey"

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


Was that done with GIMP?