Digital vs Film Resolution

"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message
...
In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something
equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we there
yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film?

According to Kodak, a digicam with 12 Mp matches the resolution of 35 mm
film. Film resolution is limited by light scattering within the emulsion
layer.

Marvin Margoshes wrote:
"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message
...
In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something
equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we
there yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film?

According to Kodak, a digicam with 12 Mp matches the resolution of 35
mm film. Film resolution is limited by light scattering within the
emulsion layer.

Complicated by the fact that the MTF curves and noise characteristics are
rather different. Sampled data systems need an anti-aliasing filter which
cuts off before half the sampling frequency, resulting in an MTF curve
which is flatter but having a more sudden cut-off than non-sampled analog
systems.

"Matches" is rather subjective word here!

Cheers,
David

Dick LeadWinger writes:

In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something
equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we there
yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film?

I guess this will sound harsh, but it's rather a pointless question. For
some uses, film works better; for other uses, digital works better. I think
the quality of digital imagery is at the level where resolution is probably
no longer the issue for general consumers. The question is, what's your
need?

If you want big prints, for example, like those available from good quality
film and good quality film cameras, maybe you need a full-size DSLR that
costs in the mid to high four figures. But you'll also need a good
Macintosh computer and high end software to deal with the files. Oh, and a
bigger disk, a couple of firewire drives, more RAM, maybe a local area
network and another Mac or two. Without knowing what your need is, who can
tell?

Someone has mentioned that in a database for slides, you don't need good
quality scans, just thumbnails. I'll report that I have my slides indexed
in a database without any imagery at all. Just text, and it works fine for
me. I started before home scanning was possible, and I've never seen the
need to have thumbs of the slides. I use iView MediaPro for my digital
images, and it generates thumbnails, so I see the advantage, but I'm not
about to have my slides scanned, no matter how poorly. :- It's just not
cost effective. Uh, for me. For others, it clearly is. Not my need,
though.
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.

Dick wrote:
In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something
equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we there
yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film?

Apples and oranges. They are different. Digital has reached the point
that is it better in some ways and not as good in others.

If you want to look at just resolution try comparing a really good lens
on a 35 film camera using TechPan film. and compare that to a digital outfit
of equal cost. Digital can't come close to the resolution. However that is
far from the whole picture. Also note that Kodak in no longer making
TechPan.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Dick wrote:

In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something
equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we there
yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film?

Kodak digital film scientist in Photonics magazine stated earlier
that consumer films had about 25MP worth of data in them (not including
special films like TechPan which will go even higher).

About 5000x4000+ resolution will get you there.

Very high quality lenses will have 90+lp/mm of resolution in them.

BetterLight.com and PhaseOne.com both have digital cameras that go
past 100MP because 'normal' consumer digicams and dSLRs don't have the
resolution needed to replace MF/LF cameras in professional graphics and
ad work.

Canon just released their 16MP dSLR because their former model wasn't
good enough.

Dick wrote:

In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something
equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we there
yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film?

Kodak digital film scientist in Photonics magazine stated earlier
that consumer films had about 25MP worth of data in them (not including
special films like TechPan which will go even higher).

About 5000x4000+ resolution will get you there.

Very high quality lenses will have 90+lp/mm of resolution in them.

BetterLight.com and PhaseOne.com both have digital cameras that go
past 100MP because 'normal' consumer digicams and dSLRs don't have the
resolution needed to replace MF/LF cameras in professional graphics and
ad work.

Canon just released their 16MP dSLR because their former model wasn't
good enough.

Thanks everyone for the insights. My needs are much more modest.
Lets say all I want are really good 5 X 7 prints. For the baseline,
let's say I take my trusty Canon AE-1 using a Canon FD 50mm 1:1.4 lens
and take some pictures with it using Kodak Gold 200 film. Then I take
the film to Costco or similar for the prints.

Now what digital mp would I need to make similar quality prints? I
could take the media to Costco, or I could print it out on my Canon
i860 printer. I am looking at cameras like the Sony DSC -W1 and P100.
Maybe the Canon S500. I realize they are not SLR's. Do I need to
look further up the mp scale?

Dick

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:55:51 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:

Dick wrote:
In the early days of digital photography, it was said that something
equivalent to 35mm file was some time out in the future. Are we there
yet? What digital resolution would be equivalent to 35mm film?

Apples and oranges. They are different. Digital has reached the point
that is it better in some ways and not as good in others.

If you want to look at just resolution try comparing a really good lens
on a 35 film camera using TechPan film. and compare that to a digital outfit
of equal cost. Digital can't come close to the resolution. However that is
far from the whole picture. Also note that Kodak in no longer making
TechPan.

"Dick" LeadWinger wrote in message
...
Thanks everyone for the insights. My needs are much more modest.
Lets say all I want are really good 5 X 7 prints. For the baseline,
let's say I take my trusty Canon AE-1 using a Canon FD 50mm 1:1.4 lens
and take some pictures with it using Kodak Gold 200 film. Then I take
the film to Costco or similar for the prints.

Now what digital mp would I need to make similar quality prints? I
could take the media to Costco, or I could print it out on my Canon
i860 printer. I am looking at cameras like the Sony DSC -W1 and P100.
Maybe the Canon S500. I realize they are not SLR's. Do I need to
look further up the mp scale?


I use a Nikon D2H and I routinely get 8x10s printed from Ofoto with
exceptional results. Any digital SLR with 4 MP or better is going to give
you excellent 5x7s.

But it's not just megapixels that are going to give you film-quality
results. The camera has to have a good lens, good AF, and a sensor that
keeps noise from ruining the pictures. You simply are not going to get
film-replacement quality from a small-sensor point-and-shoot such as you
mention above.

HMc

Howard McCollister wrote:



I use a Nikon D2H and I routinely get 8x10s printed from Ofoto with
exceptional results. Any digital SLR with 4 MP or better is going to give
you excellent 5x7s.


3-4 MP should do it.


--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
Howard McCollister wrote:

I use a Nikon D2H and I routinely get 8x10s printed from Ofoto with
exceptional results. Any digital SLR with 4 MP or better is going to give
you excellent 5x7s.


3-4 MP should do it.

Keep in mind that you may decide you want to crop your original shot. Having
more than 3-4 MP will allow you to do that and still get an excellent 5x7
final print. If you have just enough resolution to make a good 5x7 print and
then you crop it, it'll start to show.

Ken