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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
I seems sensible that 24MP may be required to retain most of the noticeable
information that 35mm film has, but that isn't to say 24MP file from a film scan is the same as 24MP image from a 24MP array of CCDS, where there is more information per pixel. For a demonstration of this, see the link I have put at the end.. A direct comparison is going to be difficult to be possible due to incongruence of grain and pixel. So I ask the question the other way round... *What is the equivalent film size (i.e. aps, 35mm, 120?) for a 12MP image from a canon DSLR?* Wouldn't be surprised if it were large format... Duncan. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ ....Go right down to the bottom where 10D is compared to 35mm. You probably need to load into Photoshop to compare. Notice that the 35mm scan is a larger image - it certainly contains more detail, and yet, the 10D image appears to be more economical with pixels, presumably because the image in the first place was designed for a pixelated world... It's also interesting to note the decreased noise in the 10D image (due to noise reduction, I am sure) and the apparently better white balance. Overall a cleaner look, but not one is therefore more accurate. "Jeremy" wrote in message nk.net... "Matt" wrote in message ... I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm film quality? Kodak, on one of their web pages, has indicated that 24MP is equivalent to the potential of 35mm film. This is just in theory. I have a 2.3 MP digicam that produces very fine images, when printed by OFOTO. It is all relative. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
I seems sensible that 24MP may be required to retain most of the noticeable
information that 35mm film has, but that isn't to say 24MP file from a film scan is the same as 24MP image from a 24MP array of CCDS, where there is more information per pixel. For a demonstration of this, see the link I have put at the end.. A direct comparison is going to be difficult to be possible due to incongruence of grain and pixel. So I ask the question the other way round... *What is the equivalent film size (i.e. aps, 35mm, 120?) for a 12MP image from a canon DSLR?* Wouldn't be surprised if it were large format... Duncan. http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ ....Go right down to the bottom where 10D is compared to 35mm. You probably need to load into Photoshop to compare. Notice that the 35mm scan is a larger image - it certainly contains more detail, and yet, the 10D image appears to be more economical with pixels, presumably because the image in the first place was designed for a pixelated world... It's also interesting to note the decreased noise in the 10D image (due to noise reduction, I am sure) and the apparently better white balance. Overall a cleaner look, but not one is therefore more accurate. "Jeremy" wrote in message nk.net... "Matt" wrote in message ... I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm film quality? Kodak, on one of their web pages, has indicated that 24MP is equivalent to the potential of 35mm film. This is just in theory. I have a 2.3 MP digicam that produces very fine images, when printed by OFOTO. It is all relative. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi
film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. The 4800 dpi scanners will let you print a nice 14x20. When 9600 DPI scanners arrive, the prints you can get from a negative/slide will be almost life size. Why? Because the resolution stored in a sharp photo is incredible, and good scanners are able to capture more and more of it. A 4800 DPI Scanner gets you about 128Mb per shot. Any 128Mb Digital cameras out there? Forget about 512Mb cameras (which would be needed to keep up with 9600 DPI scanners). Even high end digital cameras (within reach of most of use) are still stretching it to put out a good 8x10. When Digital cameras, if ever, produce more resolution than the best available 35mm scanner, then perhaps the tide will have turned. We are a long way from that day. Regards, Beau "KBob" wrote in message ... On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:31:33 -0000, "Matt" wrote: 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? Certainly 8 Mp could beat the pants off of 35mm film, if it was 8 Mpx in a high-end pro camera with a critically fine lens. However, this simply isn't the case when we speak of "8 Mpx cameras." For that matter, the D100, D70 etc. easily beat film, but you will be disappointed with the dinky-sensored consumer cameras that tout 8 Mpx, since a large portion of their resolution is lost due to bleedover and other anomalies associated with the tiny sensor size. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi
film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. The 4800 dpi scanners will let you print a nice 14x20. When 9600 DPI scanners arrive, the prints you can get from a negative/slide will be almost life size. Why? Because the resolution stored in a sharp photo is incredible, and good scanners are able to capture more and more of it. A 4800 DPI Scanner gets you about 128Mb per shot. Any 128Mb Digital cameras out there? Forget about 512Mb cameras (which would be needed to keep up with 9600 DPI scanners). Even high end digital cameras (within reach of most of use) are still stretching it to put out a good 8x10. When Digital cameras, if ever, produce more resolution than the best available 35mm scanner, then perhaps the tide will have turned. We are a long way from that day. Regards, Beau "KBob" wrote in message ... On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:31:33 -0000, "Matt" wrote: 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? Certainly 8 Mp could beat the pants off of 35mm film, if it was 8 Mpx in a high-end pro camera with a critically fine lens. However, this simply isn't the case when we speak of "8 Mpx cameras." For that matter, the D100, D70 etc. easily beat film, but you will be disappointed with the dinky-sensored consumer cameras that tout 8 Mpx, since a large portion of their resolution is lost due to bleedover and other anomalies associated with the tiny sensor size. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Harvey wrote:
"Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Harvey wrote:
"Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Harvey posted:
"Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix And a tif would be 25.03 MB at that size and would print 11.67"x8.33" @ 300 dpi for offset. I wouldn't want to tell a customer that I can print a 35mm picture any bigger than that using offset. I would get lynched when they saw the effect -- Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
35mm on grade 3 explained | Michael Scarpitti | In The Darkroom | 240 | September 26th 04 02:46 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 274 | July 30th 04 12:26 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |