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

8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old November 21st 04, 02:10 AM
Duncan J Murray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 21st 04, 02:10 AM
Duncan J Murray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 21st 04, 02:22 AM
Donald Brummel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 21st 04, 02:22 AM
Donald Brummel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 21st 04, 02:39 AM
Harvey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 21st 04, 02:39 AM
Harvey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 21st 04, 03:04 AM
Crownfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 21st 04, 03:04 AM
Crownfield
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 21st 04, 03:17 AM
Petros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:19 PM.


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.