Digital vs Film Resolution

John McWilliams wrote:
David Chien wrote:


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


Canon releases a new 16 MP dSLR because: a.) They can, and b.) they will
make money from it. There are other reasons, also.

It doesn't render previous models either obsolete nor instantly less
good than they were and are.


Given the price of the one announced (not yet "released") is $8,000, it
is not likely to dent the sales of the 20D ($1,500).

Phil

"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?

The 8MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the 8MP edging out the
Provia. (These were burried in a thread in a dpreview forum.)

The 11MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the11MP trouncing the
Provia.

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

The film fans whimper that scanning doesn't get everything from the film,
but my microscope tells me that my 4000 dpi scanner isn't missing enough to
make a practical difference in use.

The bad news is that current inkjet printers, e.g. the Epson R800, can
render a lot more than 6MP of detail at A4 (8x12). You need at least 11MP to
make prints as detailed as the R800 is capable of.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"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?

The 8MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the 8MP edging out the
Provia. (These were burried in a thread in a dpreview forum.)

The 11MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the11MP trouncing the
Provia.

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

The film fans whimper that scanning doesn't get everything from the film,
but my microscope tells me that my 4000 dpi scanner isn't missing enough to
make a practical difference in use.

The bad news is that current inkjet printers, e.g. the Epson R800, can
render a lot more than 6MP of detail at A4 (8x12). You need at least 11MP to
make prints as detailed as the R800 is capable of.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Ken Alverson wrote:
"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

It is all a matter of degree. It may be argued that 35 film should
never have been used because you might want to crop and you can crop a large
format with less loss.

For most people looking for the results stated, I believe that 3-4 is
sufficient. Going larger is not bad, but may well be overkill for most
people. Most people here are not most people in the real word.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Its not just the quality of the printer that counts. Most film processing
labs today are converting to digital mini labs. If you take your film to
Kmart, Walmar, Target or your local grocery chain, they are processing the
negatives, then scanning them at 400 dpi in their computers. This is even
true for most small photo or camera shops. Costs associated with disposal
of processing chemicals, as well as incentives given to shops to upgrade
equipment is making old fashioned light processing obsolete. The "prints"
you get are made from digital images scanned from your film. Thus, as real
honest to goodness darkrooms disappear, the digital cameras only need to
catch up to the quality of the photo lab scanners.

Bill B

"jjs" wrote in message
...
"TRR" wrote in message
hlink.net...
After the techies resolve this argument I submit the quality of your
printer makes it all moot. Not much has been said here in that regard.

Quality is still a moving target. Printers get better so one can reprint
as the technology moves on. But then, digital camera technology will also
move on.

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...


Given the price of the one announced (not yet "released") is $8,000, it
is not likely to dent the sales of the 20D ($1,500).



Nor any other dSLR...

HMc

David J. Littleboy wrote:

The 8MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the 8MP edging out the
Provia. (These were burried in a thread in a dpreview forum.)

The 11MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the11MP trouncing the
Provia.

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

The film fans whimper that scanning doesn't get everything from the film,
but my microscope tells me that my 4000 dpi scanner isn't missing enough to
make a practical difference in use.


Please. Compare Apples to Apples. He's scanning with ICE at normal and
GEM at 2, it is a known fact that such settings will soften the image a
tad, meaning he needs to apply USM just a bit. I am not saying film is
better than dSLR, but if you are going to argue for it, make a good
sound comparison, not some hacked tests.

--
// richard
http://www.imagecraft.com

David J. Littleboy wrote:

The 8MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the 8MP edging out the
Provia. (These were burried in a thread in a dpreview forum.)

The 11MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the11MP trouncing the
Provia.

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

The film fans whimper that scanning doesn't get everything from the film,
but my microscope tells me that my 4000 dpi scanner isn't missing enough to
make a practical difference in use.


Please. Compare Apples to Apples. He's scanning with ICE at normal and
GEM at 2, it is a known fact that such settings will soften the image a
tad, meaning he needs to apply USM just a bit. I am not saying film is
better than dSLR, but if you are going to argue for it, make a good
sound comparison, not some hacked tests.

--
// richard
http://www.imagecraft.com

"Richard F. Man" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

The 8MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the 8MP edging out the
Provia. (These were burried in a thread in a dpreview forum.)

The 11MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the11MP trouncing the
Provia.

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

The film fans whimper that scanning doesn't get everything from the film,
but my microscope tells me that my 4000 dpi scanner isn't missing enough
to
make a practical difference in use.


Please. Compare Apples to Apples. He's scanning with ICE at normal and
GEM at 2, it is a known fact that such settings will soften the image a
tad, meaning he needs to apply USM just a bit. I am not saying film is
better than dSLR,
but if you are going to argue for it, make a good
sound comparison, not some hacked tests.

They don't seem hacked at all. His tests very much reflect what I see in my
4000 dpi scans, and what every high-res scan I've ever seen looks like,
namely god-awful crap. Here's a few examples.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Again, I look at every frame I scan with a 60x microscope, and I really
don't see the scans losing a significant amount of information. The
difference between 35mm and 11MP seems to be a lot more than can be expained
by hypothetical losses in scanning.

There are bogus comparisons out there, but that's not one of them. The
infamous Luminous Landscape page shows 6x7 capturing a lot more detail than
11MP digital (see the drum scan comparison image) and MR failing miserbly to
get the information with his pet Imacon (a scanner that seems to me to be a
buck-nekked emperor) and failing to make a decent print from the information
he did get.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Richard F. Man" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:

The 8MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the 8MP edging out the
Provia. (These were burried in a thread in a dpreview forum.)

The 11MP vs. Provia 100F examples I've seen have the11MP trouncing the
Provia.

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm

The film fans whimper that scanning doesn't get everything from the film,
but my microscope tells me that my 4000 dpi scanner isn't missing enough
to
make a practical difference in use.


Please. Compare Apples to Apples. He's scanning with ICE at normal and
GEM at 2, it is a known fact that such settings will soften the image a
tad, meaning he needs to apply USM just a bit. I am not saying film is
better than dSLR,
but if you are going to argue for it, make a good
sound comparison, not some hacked tests.

They don't seem hacked at all. His tests very much reflect what I see in my
4000 dpi scans, and what every high-res scan I've ever seen looks like,
namely god-awful crap. Here's a few examples.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

Again, I look at every frame I scan with a 60x microscope, and I really
don't see the scans losing a significant amount of information. The
difference between 35mm and 11MP seems to be a lot more than can be expained
by hypothetical losses in scanning.

There are bogus comparisons out there, but that's not one of them. The
infamous Luminous Landscape page shows 6x7 capturing a lot more detail than
11MP digital (see the drum scan comparison image) and MR failing miserbly to
get the information with his pet Imacon (a scanner that seems to me to be a
buck-nekked emperor) and failing to make a decent print from the information
he did get.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan