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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:19:38 +0100, Lourens Smak
wrote: In article , "Mike Kohary" wrote: Huh? 35mm is a size - 35mm is 35mm. 6MP is considered approximately equivalent, so 8MP probably exceeds 35mm in terms of resolution. Well, the actual resolution would depend a LOT on the lens used, for example. (with both images). 35mm = 6MP is very simplistic. Lourens I've calculated it to be exactly 7.445239 Mpixels but my methods are secret. Not many people expected this because it turns out to be an odd number. -- Owamanga! |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
"Annika1980" wrote in message
... "Martin Francis" wrote: I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never saw a single pixel... Bet you saw grain out the ass, though. Sure. Grain is what makes up photographs on film. Did I mention I have a D100 now? -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
"Gene Palmiter" wrote in message
news:Xibnd.6301$%M4.3147@trndny08... Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is anything to go by. Yep...as far as "being funny" he will have to get by on his looks. Awww, ****.... http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/22959641 -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"DurangoLobo" wrote in message
... From: "Martin Francis" ternet I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never saw a single pixel... What am I doing wrong? Difficult to see anything when your head is wedged so far up your arse. Trying pulling it out and looking again, this time at prints. Lobo Huh? Okay, i'll have a look at a Cibachrome print from a 35mm slide under a loupe, and count the pixels. I'm sure having shoehorned my head from my backside will help. FWIW, I'd rather take pictures than argue which is better. I am now well-placed to choose between formats, as I am building a Nikon film/digital outfit, and I will endeavour to take more photos than I have of late. -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Cheers. And thanks for searching through all of my sites to find it, but i'm curious; of all those shots, why choose this sample? -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Does it matter?
"Martin Francis" wrote in message ... Cheers. And thanks for searching through all of my sites to find it, but i'm curious; of all those shots, why choose this sample? -- Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and no, and yes...." |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Owamanga wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:19:38 +0100, Lourens Smak wrote: In article , "Mike Kohary" wrote: Huh? 35mm is a size - 35mm is 35mm. 6MP is considered approximately equivalent, so 8MP probably exceeds 35mm in terms of resolution. Well, the actual resolution would depend a LOT on the lens used, for example. (with both images). 35mm = 6MP is very simplistic. Lourens I've calculated it to be exactly 7.445239 Mpixels but my methods are secret. Not many people expected this because it turns out to be an odd number. -- Owamanga! And your methods are secret because...? |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Owamanga wrote:
I've calculated it to be exactly 7.445239 Mpixels but my methods are secret. Not many people expected this because it turns out to be an odd number. It's odd alright. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI gallery]: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- [SI rulz]: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Martin Francis wrote:
"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? Really, really difficult area- comparing film to digital inevitably means scanning film, by which point it is really a comparison of digital capture media. IME, desktop film scanners are largely terrible. Digital is in a league of it's own. Not to say a better or worse league, just different. Sadly, the way it's going, the digital league is seemingly more comparable (numbers-wise) to the NFL, compared to film's World Tiddlywinks Championship. I'd say that Film and digital are both in leagues of their own. I'm not sure how you compare. Film is not necessarily displayed at its best when scanned and subsequently viewed on screen. Digital is not necessarily displayed at it's absolute best when printed using inkjet technology, for example. Therein lies the quandary. What is needed is a common point of contact where either there is an equal degree of compromise for the two media, or a point of contact where neither needs to compromise (unlikely). Alternatively we could all stop bitching about whose media is better than whose and just accept they are different, and love them for their differences. Then maybe we could get past the endless cycle of the same threads appearing every few weeks. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"MXP" writes:
In the old Kodachrome 25 days it was possible to put down 200 lp/mm on the film. When did those days end? The Kodachrome data sheet as of December, 2000 had Kodachrome 25 Professional (PKM) down to 10% MTF at 70 cycles/mm. Presumably rather lower than that at 200. Assuming, of course, that you could produce 200 cycles at the image plane, which isn't at all easy. Ever notice that the highest frequency on lens MTF charts seems to be 40 cycles? snip -- -Stephen H. Westin Any information or opinions in this message are mine: they do not represent the position of Cornell University or any of its sponsors. |
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 |