A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Digital vs Film Resolution



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 29th 04, 09:06 PM
Ken Alverson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Howard McCollister wrote:

I use a Nikon D2H and I routinely get 8x10s printed from Ofoto with
exceptional results. Any digital SLR with 4 MP or better is going to give
you excellent 5x7s.


3-4 MP should do it.


Keep in mind that you may decide you want to crop your original shot. Having
more than 3-4 MP will allow you to do that and still get an excellent 5x7
final print. If you have just enough resolution to make a good 5x7 print and
then you crop it, it'll start to show.

Ken


  #22  
Old September 29th 04, 09:13 PM
Ken Alverson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message
...

Now what digital mp would I need to make similar quality prints? I
could take the media to Costco, or I could print it out on my Canon
i860 printer. I am looking at cameras like the Sony DSC -W1 and P100.
Maybe the Canon S500. I realize they are not SLR's. Do I need to
look further up the mp scale?


As others have said, you can get good 5x7 prints out of 3-4 megapixels.
However, with the non SLR digicams, you are working with very small sensors,
so noise is a concern, especially at ISO ratings of higher than 100. My Canon
10D (digital SLR) has less noise at ISO 400 than a lot of compact digicams
have at ISO 100. I have even printed an ISO 800 shot at 11x17 with pretty
good results. I wouldn't want to try that with a camera as small as the S500.

Not to knock the S500 - I want one as my snapshot camera - but be aware that
resolution is not the only factor.

Ken


  #23  
Old September 29th 04, 09:13 PM
Ken Alverson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message
...

Now what digital mp would I need to make similar quality prints? I
could take the media to Costco, or I could print it out on my Canon
i860 printer. I am looking at cameras like the Sony DSC -W1 and P100.
Maybe the Canon S500. I realize they are not SLR's. Do I need to
look further up the mp scale?


As others have said, you can get good 5x7 prints out of 3-4 megapixels.
However, with the non SLR digicams, you are working with very small sensors,
so noise is a concern, especially at ISO ratings of higher than 100. My Canon
10D (digital SLR) has less noise at ISO 400 than a lot of compact digicams
have at ISO 100. I have even printed an ISO 800 shot at 11x17 with pretty
good results. I wouldn't want to try that with a camera as small as the S500.

Not to knock the S500 - I want one as my snapshot camera - but be aware that
resolution is not the only factor.

Ken


  #24  
Old September 29th 04, 09:14 PM
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Böwzér wrote:
"Howard McCollister" wrote in message
...

"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message
. ..

In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something
equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we there
yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film?


If you're just talking resolution, then yes, 6mp sensors or more will give
you about the resolution of film.



This is, in the very least, debateable. 6MP cameras will not provide
anywhere near the detail contained in a high quality chrome. The issue is
getting that detail off the chrome and into a scan.


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.
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 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



There's more to it, though. Noise is an
issue and to minimize noise, smaller sensors such as in the
point-and-shoots
won't give you as good a result as a dSLR, even at the same resolution
sensor. The other issue is dynamic range. 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.

Dynamic
range will improve, as we see in such high-level sensors such as the Creo
Leaf. That $15,000 sensor will give reported 12 stops of dynmamic range,
equal or better than just about any film. So for dynamic range, which is
important, digital is not quite there yet. Give it a couple of years, or
wait and see what kind of DR the Fujifilm S3 dSLR will give us.

The current crop of high end models by Canon, and perhaps even the 20D are
close to being limited by the 12-bit digitization of the camera.
To get beyond 11 bits, they will need to move to 14-bit systems
(or higher).

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

  #25  
Old September 29th 04, 09:14 PM
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Böwzér wrote:
"Howard McCollister" wrote in message
...

"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message
. ..

In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something
equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we there
yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film?


If you're just talking resolution, then yes, 6mp sensors or more will give
you about the resolution of film.



This is, in the very least, debateable. 6MP cameras will not provide
anywhere near the detail contained in a high quality chrome. The issue is
getting that detail off the chrome and into a scan.


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.
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 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



There's more to it, though. Noise is an
issue and to minimize noise, smaller sensors such as in the
point-and-shoots
won't give you as good a result as a dSLR, even at the same resolution
sensor. The other issue is dynamic range. 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.

Dynamic
range will improve, as we see in such high-level sensors such as the Creo
Leaf. That $15,000 sensor will give reported 12 stops of dynmamic range,
equal or better than just about any film. So for dynamic range, which is
important, digital is not quite there yet. Give it a couple of years, or
wait and see what kind of DR the Fujifilm S3 dSLR will give us.

The current crop of high end models by Canon, and perhaps even the 20D are
close to being limited by the 12-bit digitization of the camera.
To get beyond 11 bits, they will need to move to 14-bit systems
(or higher).

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

  #26  
Old September 29th 04, 09:30 PM
Dick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 29 Sep 2004 14:13:27 -0500, "Howard McCollister"
wrote:


"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message
.. .
Thanks everyone for the insights. My needs are much more modest.
Lets say all I want are really good 5 X 7 prints. For the baseline,
let's say I take my trusty Canon AE-1 using a Canon FD 50mm 1:1.4 lens
and take some pictures with it using Kodak Gold 200 film. Then I take
the film to Costco or similar for the prints.

Now what digital mp would I need to make similar quality prints? I
could take the media to Costco, or I could print it out on my Canon
i860 printer. I am looking at cameras like the Sony DSC -W1 and P100.
Maybe the Canon S500. I realize they are not SLR's. Do I need to
look further up the mp scale?


I use a Nikon D2H and I routinely get 8x10s printed from Ofoto with
exceptional results. Any digital SLR with 4 MP or better is going to give
you excellent 5x7s.

But it's not just megapixels that are going to give you film-quality
results. The camera has to have a good lens, good AF, and a sensor that
keeps noise from ruining the pictures. You simply are not going to get
film-replacement quality from a small-sensor point-and-shoot such as you
mention above.

HMc


I'm sure a $3,500 camera will take better pictures than a $350 camera,
but I don't really need something that professional. I'm confused by
sensor size. The D2H has a 23.3mm X 15.5mm sensor, whereas the Sony's
mentioned have 28mm sensors which would seem to be larger. Is there
more to sensor size than the obvious?

Dick
  #27  
Old September 29th 04, 09:40 PM
Howard McCollister
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Ken Alverson" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Howard McCollister wrote:

I use a Nikon D2H and I routinely get 8x10s printed from Ofoto with
exceptional results. Any digital SLR with 4 MP or better is going to

give
you excellent 5x7s.


3-4 MP should do it.


Keep in mind that you may decide you want to crop your original shot.

Having
more than 3-4 MP will allow you to do that and still get an excellent 5x7
final print. If you have just enough resolution to make a good 5x7 print

and
then you crop it, it'll start to show.


True.

HMc



  #28  
Old September 29th 04, 09:48 PM
Jeremy Nixon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dick LeadWinger wrote:

I'm sure a $3,500 camera will take better pictures than a $350 camera,
but I don't really need something that professional. I'm confused by
sensor size. The D2H has a 23.3mm X 15.5mm sensor, whereas the Sony's
mentioned have 28mm sensors which would seem to be larger. Is there
more to sensor size than the obvious?


The Sonys most certainly don't have 28mm sensors... the W1's sensor is
7.18mm x 5.32mm according to the specs.

--
Jeremy |
  #29  
Old September 29th 04, 10:05 PM
Roland Karlsson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

That would be the issue IF a scanned image was your final product.
However most people are looking for prints. You don't need to scan a
slide to get a print.


A good scanner will probably record more detail than you
can get with the best optical/chemical printing methods.

Most professional pictures are today scanned before printed.

Most hobby photographers cannot get the full potential
out of prints anyway.

So - the very small amount of direct optical/chemical prints
made today that are better than you can get from a digital
camera is probably very small.

And that is whats count - not the potential - but the actual
result.


/Roland
  #30  
Old September 29th 04, 10:05 PM
Roland Karlsson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in
:

That would be the issue IF a scanned image was your final product.
However most people are looking for prints. You don't need to scan a
slide to get a print.


A good scanner will probably record more detail than you
can get with the best optical/chemical printing methods.

Most professional pictures are today scanned before printed.

Most hobby photographers cannot get the full potential
out of prints anyway.

So - the very small amount of direct optical/chemical prints
made today that are better than you can get from a digital
camera is probably very small.

And that is whats count - not the potential - but the actual
result.


/Roland
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs KM Medium Format Photography Equipment 724 December 7th 04 10:58 AM
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? Toralf Digital Photography 213 July 28th 04 06:30 PM
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography Bob Monaghan Medium Format Photography Equipment 9 June 19th 04 05:48 PM
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... Todd Bailey Film & Labs 0 May 27th 04 08:12 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.