MF resolution question

Hello,

I have a question for the folks using medium format. My question is,
does 35mm give identical result to MF up to 8R (8x10) prints? The math
seems to point that way - here's how:

35mm frame size = 24x36 mm sq = 1.339203 sq inch
Given, a 300 dpi print is considered to be a "museum quality" print.
8x10 print = 8x10x(300)^2 = 7,200,000
Therefore, scan dpi for 35 mm film = sqrt (7,200,000 / 1.339203) =
2319 dpi

Now, 35mm film is supposed to have a theoretical resolution of 4000
dpi. That may be a matter of opinion, but it's certainly more then
2319 dpi.

So is there any justification for using MF if 8R is the maximum size
you print? I've read MF guys claiming that old Yashica TLRs
outperforming Nikon SLRs, so I'd like to see some hard evidence behind
this. Feel free to point out any errors I've made – I'm new at this
:-) Also, is film grain a factor?

About me: beginner, shooting b&w in Minolta X-700, I make my own
prints. Eying MF (esp. TLRs) gear recently.

Faisal Bhua wrote:
Hello,

I have a question for the folks using medium format. My question is,
does 35mm give identical result to MF up to 8R (8x10) prints? The math
seems to point that way - here's how:

35mm frame size = 24x36 mm sq = 1.339203 sq inch
Given, a 300 dpi print is considered to be a "museum quality" print.
8x10 print = 8x10x(300)^2 = 7,200,000
Therefore, scan dpi for 35 mm film = sqrt (7,200,000 / 1.339203) =
2319 dpi

Now, 35mm film is supposed to have a theoretical resolution of 4000
dpi. That may be a matter of opinion, but it's certainly more then
2319 dpi.

Kodak claims 35mm film contains 28meg of data. Not only does a MF negative
create a better 8x10 but a bigger negative will make a better print then a
MF negative.

Size does matter.

Nick

Even if nothing else, a bigger negative gives you smoother distribution of
grain. Remember that even when the grain is not visible, irregularities in
the grain still have some effect.

Smaller formats, on the other hand, give you more depth of field with a
given angle of view.

"Michael A. Covington" wrote in message ...
Even if nothing else, a bigger negative gives you smoother distribution of
grain. Remember that even when the grain is not visible, irregularities in
the grain still have some effect.

OK... the only factor in this case is film then grain.

From what I understand, film is made of microscopic dots. As film area
gets larger, we can allocate more "dots" to capture a certain scene.
Hence, these dots can be far apart, which results in grain being less
visible. Overall, this makes the picture looks better in terms of
continuous tones, but does not affect resolution in general (up to a
certain print size).

Is this correct or there's more to it?

F.B.

"Faisal Bhua" wrote in message
om...
"Michael A. Covington"
wrote in message ...
Even if nothing else, a bigger negative gives you smoother distribution
of
grain. Remember that even when the grain is not visible, irregularities
in
the grain still have some effect.

OK... the only factor in this case is film then grain.

From what I understand, film is made of microscopic dots. As film area
gets larger, we can allocate more "dots" to capture a certain scene.
Hence, these dots can be far apart, which results in grain being less
visible. Overall, this makes the picture looks better in terms of
continuous tones, but does not affect resolution in general (up to a
certain print size).

Is this correct or there's more to it?

That's basically right. Remember that the dots themselves are not uniformly
distributed (the film is not a pixel array). Even when the format is large
enough that no grain is visible as such, there are still subtle effects from
the uneven, random distribution of the grain. These effects diminish as the
format gets even larger.

At least that's how I understand it, and it fits the available mathematical
models.


Clear skies,

Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope

Nick Zentena wrote in message ...
Not only does a MF negative create a better 8x10 but a bigger negative will make
a better print then a MF negative.

Yes, this seems to be the common opinion. That does not answer my
question: why? If 300 dpi is enough for everybody, how can I possibly
gain any advantage?

Faisal Bhua wrote:
Nick Zentena wrote in message ...
Not only does a MF negative create a better 8x10 but a bigger negative will make
a better print then a MF negative.

Yes, this seems to be the common opinion. That does not answer my
question: why? If 300 dpi is enough for everybody, how can I possibly
gain any advantage?


Go an look. Only way to really believe.

Nick

Faisal Bhua wrote:
: Nick Zentena wrote in message ...
: Not only does a MF negative create a better 8x10 but a bigger negative will make
: a better print then a MF negative.

: Yes, this seems to be the common opinion. That does not answer my
: question: why? If 300 dpi is enough for everybody, how can I possibly
: gain any advantage?

300 dpi isn't enough for everybody. IT comes down to the amount of information
the film can record.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

There's no need to waste time trying to analyze this mathematically. I've
seen prints using the same film from both formats printed the same size, and
MF wins every time, hands-down. Math be damned, there's no substitute for
viewing prints.

Besides, there a huge flaw in the math. You make the leap from analog to
digital with no consideration for whether or not there actually can be
equivilances. Also, some films print nicely but don't scan well, so where's
the equivilancy?

"Faisal Bhua" wrote in message
om...
Hello,

I have a question for the folks using medium format. My question is,
does 35mm give identical result to MF up to 8R (8x10) prints? The math
seems to point that way - here's how:

35mm frame size = 24x36 mm sq = 1.339203 sq inch
Given, a 300 dpi print is considered to be a "museum quality" print.
8x10 print = 8x10x(300)^2 = 7,200,000
Therefore, scan dpi for 35 mm film = sqrt (7,200,000 / 1.339203) =
2319 dpi

Now, 35mm film is supposed to have a theoretical resolution of 4000
dpi. That may be a matter of opinion, but it's certainly more then
2319 dpi.

So is there any justification for using MF if 8R is the maximum size
you print? I've read MF guys claiming that old Yashica TLRs
outperforming Nikon SLRs, so I'd like to see some hard evidence behind
this. Feel free to point out any errors I've made - I'm new at this
:-) Also, is film grain a factor?

About me: beginner, shooting b&w in Minolta X-700, I make my own
prints. Eying MF (esp. TLRs) gear recently.

There's a reason why 35mm is known as a "miniature" film. :-) I once ran a
test by which I set up a tripod and composed an image and using the same type
of film I made a photo with a 35mm, 645, and 4x5 camera. I used a "normal"
focal length lens for each camera. I then printed the resulting image on at
11x14. Making the best print I could from each negative. When I show the prints
to people everyone of them can plainly tell the difference in quality.


?owser wrote:
: There's no need to waste time trying to analyze this mathematically. I've
: seen prints using the same film from both formats printed the same size, and
: MF wins every time, hands-down. Math be damned, there's no substitute for
: viewing prints.

: Besides, there a huge flaw in the math. You make the leap from analog to
: digital with no consideration for whether or not there actually can be
: equivilances. Also, some films print nicely but don't scan well, so where's
: the equivilancy?

: "Faisal Bhua" wrote in message
: om...
: Hello,
:
: I have a question for the folks using medium format. My question is,
: does 35mm give identical result to MF up to 8R (8x10) prints? The math
: seems to point that way - here's how:
:
: 35mm frame size = 24x36 mm sq = 1.339203 sq inch
: Given, a 300 dpi print is considered to be a "museum quality" print.
: 8x10 print = 8x10x(300)^2 = 7,200,000
: Therefore, scan dpi for 35 mm film = sqrt (7,200,000 / 1.339203) =
: 2319 dpi
:
: Now, 35mm film is supposed to have a theoretical resolution of 4000
: dpi. That may be a matter of opinion, but it's certainly more then
: 2319 dpi.
:
: So is there any justification for using MF if 8R is the maximum size
: you print? I've read MF guys claiming that old Yashica TLRs
: outperforming Nikon SLRs, so I'd like to see some hard evidence behind
: this. Feel free to point out any errors I've made - I'm new at this
: :-) Also, is film grain a factor?
:
: About me: beginner, shooting b&w in Minolta X-700, I make my own
: prints. Eying MF (esp. TLRs) gear recently.



--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------