8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
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?



It's like saying that playing a Mp3 file on a portable device is the
same as listening to the original high quality recording on a high-end
stereo: The basic measurements are the same (frequency response, s/n
ratio), but does it sound the same?

Some people might not notice any difference, especially if they only
listen to electronic or synthesized nusic.
Others will hear a great difference, and consider the Mp3 as the audio
equivalent of eating rancid butter.

So it all comes down to your needs, perceptions and tastes.

Yeah just like M$ saying that recording at 64kbps with their WMA v8 codec was
"near CD quality". LOL.
Variable bitrate 192kbps+ MP3 maybe, but anything less sounds light crap to my
ears. Especially highhats.

There are some that say even though digital sensors are recording more and more
detail these days, they record it different to film.

Someone on this ng recently said that to do massive enlargements film is still
the way to go.

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
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?



It's like saying that playing a Mp3 file on a portable device is the
same as listening to the original high quality recording on a high-end
stereo: The basic measurements are the same (frequency response, s/n
ratio), but does it sound the same?

Some people might not notice any difference, especially if they only
listen to electronic or synthesized nusic.
Others will hear a great difference, and consider the Mp3 as the audio
equivalent of eating rancid butter.

So it all comes down to your needs, perceptions and tastes.

Yeah just like M$ saying that recording at 64kbps with their WMA v8 codec was
"near CD quality". LOL.
Variable bitrate 192kbps+ MP3 maybe, but anything less sounds light crap to my
ears. Especially highhats.

There are some that say even though digital sensors are recording more and more
detail these days, they record it different to film.

Someone on this ng recently said that to do massive enlargements film is still
the way to go.

"Harvey" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Harvey wrote:



Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
anything to go by.

OTOH Martin is pretty accomplished photog which counts more around here...


http://www.btinternet.com/~mcsalty//...c/disabled.jpg ...
amazing.



Nice try harvey. Looking at the other photos on his website, there are some
really nice photos there. Although some not so amazing.

"Harvey" wrote in message
...

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
Harvey wrote:



Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
anything to go by.

OTOH Martin is pretty accomplished photog which counts more around here...


http://www.btinternet.com/~mcsalty//...c/disabled.jpg ...
amazing.



Nice try harvey. Looking at the other photos on his website, there are some
really nice photos there. Although some not so amazing.

I scan 35mm at 40+ Mp. But I think the equivalent in terms of ISO100 grain
is 20Mp, I am not sure though...


"Matt" wrote in message
...
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?

I scan 35mm at 40+ Mp. But I think the equivalent in terms of ISO100 grain
is 20Mp, I am not sure though...


"Matt" wrote in message
...
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?

"D.R." D.R. @ NZ wrote in message
...

....

Someone on this ng recently said that to do massive enlargements film is
still
the way to go.



I would say large format film is the way to go. :-)

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
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?



It's like saying that playing a Mp3 file on a portable device is the
same as listening to the original high quality recording on a high-end
stereo: The basic measurements are the same (frequency response, s/n
ratio), but does it sound the same?

Basic measurements aren't the same. However the differences are small enough
not to be noticed much of the time. That's why it sounds different.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:22:41 +0200, "Dps" servis*REMOVE
wrote:

I scan 35mm at 40+ Mp. But I think the equivalent in terms of ISO100 grain
is 20Mp, I am not sure though...


Iv'e done the same. But now reduce the resolution until you can't see
the grain any more. What size image do you have?

This is a question with a hundred answers.

--
Owamanga!

dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in
:

A dSLR like the Canon 1D Mark II with 8 Mpixels and a large sensor
seems to produce better large prints for me than ASA 100 speed Provia
100 F or Velvia scanned with a 4,000 dpi scanner.

And how is it compared to cibas?