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 » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

20 Mpix Canon vs film



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 29th 07, 10:51 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Colin_D[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 218
Default 20 Mpix Canon vs film

Pudentame wrote:
Scott W wrote:
Noons wrote:
On Aug 24, 10:33 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Aug 24, 12:44 am, Noons wrote:



But when it comes to the 6x4.5 and 6x7 film, nothing
compares. As simple as that.
Blanket statements are usually simple.
And usually wrong.

Actually, blanket statements aqr ethe ones
from dslr users who haven't got a clue about
MF and what it does.


It would seem that even the 5D compared quite well against 6x4.5
http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/

6x7 should out resolve the 1Ds Mark III, but then you are left
with a film image, how much this bothers you is somewhat a personal
thing, for me I would much rather have an image from the 1Ds Mark III,
assuming a very good lens, then a 6x7 MF camera.

Scott


A 35 mm negative scanned at 4000 ppi gives approximately a 24 Mpix
image, so a 20 Mpix digital has almost the resolution of 35 mm film.

A 24 Mpix digital would have the same resolution as 35 mm film, but I
expect before we see that, we'll see 35 mm film scanners with 8000 ppi
scan resolution.


You're supposing that a 35mm negative - or transparency - has detail at
4000 ppi. You *might* get that sort of detail if you:

use a tripod
have a top-of-the-line lens
have dead accurate focus
use a very slow fine-grain film

Faster film, camera shake, mis-focus, and you can kiss goodbye to detail
even at 2000 ppi.

As for 200 ISO or faster film, forget it. Even a 6-megapixel camera
will blow away any film faster than 100 ISO.

Why is it that those who compare film to digital seem to presuppose that
film is always grainless and dead sharp? Ordinary film with ordinary
processing can't hold a candle to a good digital camera, let alone at
800 or 1600 ISO.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

  #22  
Old August 29th 07, 11:20 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default 20 Mpix Canon vs film

On Aug 29, 3:00 pm, Pudentame wrote:

A 35 mm negative scanned at 4000 ppi gives approximately a 24 Mpix
image, so a 20 Mpix digital has almost the resolution of 35 mm film.


Dunno, wasn't Scot talking about MF?

A 24 Mpix digital would have the same resolution as 35 mm film, but I
expect before we see that, we'll see 35 mm film scanners with 8000 ppi
scan resolution.


I'd love that but I doubt it will happen.
Not at a price point that amateurs can
afford anyway: you can get them now, for
a LOT more than a coolscan...

  #23  
Old August 29th 07, 11:21 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default 20 Mpix Canon vs film

On Aug 29, 3:29 pm, Scott W wrote:

A film scanner at 8000 ppi would be a joke.


Perhaps. But they do exist and are working
today...

  #24  
Old August 29th 07, 11:25 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default 20 Mpix Canon vs film

On Aug 29, 7:51 pm, Colin_D wrote:

You're supposing that a 35mm negative - or transparency - has detail at
4000 ppi. You *might* get that sort of detail if you:

use a tripod
have a top-of-the-line lens
have dead accurate focus


true up to here.

use a very slow fine-grain film


not quite, you're just recycling old wisdom.
modern film rns rings around the ones
on which that is based.


Faster film, camera shake, mis-focus, and you can kiss goodbye to detail
even at 2000 ppi.


I must be a very steady handed person then...



As for 200 ISO or faster film, forget it. Even a 6-megapixel camera
will blow away any film faster than 100 ISO.


Total rubbish. Modern 400 asa film will give a
6mp camera a good run for its money. Once again,
you are basing that on info gathered with Y2K film
status. Try redoing all those evaluations for example
with modern superia 400. Or fujichrome 400x.


Why is it that those who compare film to digital seem to presuppose that
film is always grainless and dead sharp?


did you actually read what was said?


Ordinary film with ordinary
processing can't hold a candle to a good digital camera, let alone at
800 or 1600 ISO.


Like heck it can't.

  #25  
Old August 29th 07, 12:17 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,898
Default 20 Mpix Canon vs film

On Aug 29, 1:00 am, Pudentame wrote:

A 24 Mpix digital would have the same resolution as 35 mm film, but I
expect before we see that, we'll see 35 mm film scanners with 8000 ppi
scan resolution


Imacon says hi.

While 8000dpi scanners have existed for many years, I can tell you
from experience that even my 5400dpi Minolta is overkill. You just
don't get more detail by scanning at such higher settings. You just
get a larger file. So the "resolution" as it relates to pixel size
will be greater with a higher dpi scan, but it won't give you any more
true resolution in terms of detail.


  #26  
Old August 29th 07, 01:20 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Noons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,245
Default 20 Mpix Canon vs film

On Aug 29, 9:17 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Aug 29, 1:00 am, Pudentame wrote:



A 24 Mpix digital would have the same resolution as 35 mm film, but I
expect before we see that, we'll see 35 mm film scanners with 8000 ppi
scan resolution


Imacon says hi.

While 8000dpi scanners have existed for many years, I can tell you
from experience that even my 5400dpi Minolta is overkill. You just
don't get more detail by scanning at such higher settings. You just
get a larger file. So the "resolution" as it relates to pixel size
will be greater with a higher dpi scan, but it won't give you any more
true resolution in terms of detail.


I think 3000 is about right for 90% of the work on film.
4000 is needed for really outstanding work.
higher is cool to have for antialiasing but GEM
does exactly the same and faster.

this:
http://gi.leica-geosystems.com/LGISub1x4x0.aspx
would be an unattainable ideal...

 




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
6 or 8 MPIX? Chuck Deitz Digital SLR Cameras 38 March 10th 05 12:01 AM
8 Mpix or 6? Chuck Deitz Digital ZLR Cameras 7 March 3rd 05 10:10 AM
Comparison of 16 Mpix MF back to Canon 1Ds M II Bill Hilton Medium Format Photography Equipment 4 November 22nd 04 12:19 AM
Is 4 Mpix camera just as good as 5 Mpix when available light is the limiting factor? Woody Digital Photography 17 September 26th 04 06:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:12 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.