8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

Skip M posted:
"Crownfield" wrote in message
...
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.

In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it
produces a 24 meg JPEG file...


impossible.

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

Skip M posted:
"Crownfield" wrote in message
...
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.

In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it
produces a 24 meg JPEG file...


impossible.

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

"Petros" wrote in message
...
Skip M posted:
"Crownfield" wrote in message
...
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.

In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it
produces a 24 meg JPEG file...


impossible.

Why would it be impossible?

"Petros" wrote in message
...
Skip M posted:
"Crownfield" wrote in message
...
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.

In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it
produces a 24 meg JPEG file...


impossible.

Why would it be impossible?

In article ,
says...
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.



8 megapixel vs 35MM?

I didn't know there had to be a competition.

I use an 8mp digital all the time and can say this with confidence:

Is it handier? YES
Is it easier? after the initial learning curve YES
Does it match 35mm resolution? NO

For the work I do, digital (with a GOOD P&S) is better because I dont need to
hassle with changing filters or changing film when the light changes, and the
ZLR I use has enough range that I dont feel the need to change lenses. So I
get to take the following out of my camera bag:

6 filters
4 lenses
several boxes of film

and replace them with
1. a card to use with manual white balance
2. memory
3. spare battery(ies)

Perhaps if the 2/3 sensor in my camera was LARGER I could come close, but if
I want something bigger than 11x14" in my prints I would still lean toward
35mm (with good film, which is getting harder and harder to find on the
shelf, by the way).





--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

In article ,
says...
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.



8 megapixel vs 35MM?

I didn't know there had to be a competition.

I use an 8mp digital all the time and can say this with confidence:

Is it handier? YES
Is it easier? after the initial learning curve YES
Does it match 35mm resolution? NO

For the work I do, digital (with a GOOD P&S) is better because I dont need to
hassle with changing filters or changing film when the light changes, and the
ZLR I use has enough range that I dont feel the need to change lenses. So I
get to take the following out of my camera bag:

6 filters
4 lenses
several boxes of film

and replace them with
1. a card to use with manual white balance
2. memory
3. spare battery(ies)

Perhaps if the 2/3 sensor in my camera was LARGER I could come close, but if
I want something bigger than 11x14" in my prints I would still lean toward
35mm (with good film, which is getting harder and harder to find on the
shelf, by the way).





--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

"Petros" wrote in message
...
Skip M posted:
"Crownfield" wrote in message
...
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.

In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it
produces a 24 meg JPEG file...


impossible.

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos


You're right, it's a 20.8, I was misremembering, I thought the last ones I
worked on were 23.8. As far as a RAW file, it is much larger.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Petros" wrote in message
...
Skip M posted:
"Crownfield" wrote in message
...
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.

In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it
produces a 24 meg JPEG file...


impossible.

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos


You're right, it's a 20.8, I was misremembering, I thought the last ones I
worked on were 23.8. As far as a RAW file, it is much larger.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Larry" wrote in message
ews.com...



8 megapixel vs 35MM?

I didn't know there had to be a competition.

I use an 8mp digital all the time and can say this with confidence:

Is it handier? YES
Is it easier? after the initial learning curve YES
Does it match 35mm resolution? NO

For the work I do, digital (with a GOOD P&S) is better because I dont need
to
hassle with changing filters or changing film when the light changes, and
the
ZLR I use has enough range that I dont feel the need to change lenses. So
I
get to take the following out of my camera bag:

6 filters
4 lenses
several boxes of film

and replace them with
1. a card to use with manual white balance
2. memory
3. spare battery(ies)

Perhaps if the 2/3 sensor in my camera was LARGER I could come close, but
if
I want something bigger than 11x14" in my prints I would still lean toward
35mm (with good film, which is getting harder and harder to find on the
shelf, by the way).





--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

You may be able to say it with confidence, but your equipment's limitations
curtail its veracity, as you note in your last paragraph.
Some digital equipment at 8mp, for one reason or another, won't equal the
best of film. Some will, and in some uses, possibly exceed it. I get
better 16x20 images from my 20D than I did from my 1n with Ilford XP-2, a
400 ISO film. Will I get better 16x20s than from Ektar 25? I don't know,
since I can't make that comparison.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Larry" wrote in message
ews.com...



8 megapixel vs 35MM?

I didn't know there had to be a competition.

I use an 8mp digital all the time and can say this with confidence:

Is it handier? YES
Is it easier? after the initial learning curve YES
Does it match 35mm resolution? NO

For the work I do, digital (with a GOOD P&S) is better because I dont need
to
hassle with changing filters or changing film when the light changes, and
the
ZLR I use has enough range that I dont feel the need to change lenses. So
I
get to take the following out of my camera bag:

6 filters
4 lenses
several boxes of film

and replace them with
1. a card to use with manual white balance
2. memory
3. spare battery(ies)

Perhaps if the 2/3 sensor in my camera was LARGER I could come close, but
if
I want something bigger than 11x14" in my prints I would still lean toward
35mm (with good film, which is getting harder and harder to find on the
shelf, by the way).





--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

You may be able to say it with confidence, but your equipment's limitations
curtail its veracity, as you note in your last paragraph.
Some digital equipment at 8mp, for one reason or another, won't equal the
best of film. Some will, and in some uses, possibly exceed it. I get
better 16x20 images from my 20D than I did from my 1n with Ilford XP-2, a
400 ISO film. Will I get better 16x20s than from Ektar 25? I don't know,
since I can't make that comparison.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com