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?

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!

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?

The same applies to any digital image

This is a question with a hundred answers.


.... and comes in a thousand flavors also ;-)

-- dimitris

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?

The same applies to any digital image

This is a question with a hundred answers.


.... and comes in a thousand flavors also ;-)

-- dimitris

"Owamanga" wrote:
"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?

Rather than reducing the resolution, you should hit the scan with NeatImage
or Noise Ninja.

Then you can compare the detail to what you see in digital capture by either
downsampling the film or upsampling the digital.

To my eye, high-res scans are _much_ softer (i.e. less rich in detail) than
digital originals on a per-pixel basis*. But scans have a lot of pixels. I
don't see significant loss of pictorial detail when I downsample 4000 dpi
scans to 2400 dpi or so, so that puts 24x36 as very close to 8MP. (Note that
this is pretty much the same as saying that film has very little useful
information above 30 lp/mm, and none above 45 lp/mmg.)

*: Check here for a lot of examples of what real scans actually look like
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

This is a question with a hundred answers.

Well, there's already a fairly reasonable consensus** that 6MP is about 80%
of 4000 dpi scanned Provia 100F, so that puts 8MP at quite close. 5400 dpi
scanned Reala might do a tad better (after NeatImage, of course).

**: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Harvey wrote:

"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 ...

One phot of an essay... you can find just as ordinary phots in Nat Geo.

Of course we'd love to see your genius in action...

--
-- 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.

"Joseph Meehan" writes:

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. :-)

I'd say that large format is the way to go.

Small-format film has resolution limits just like small-format digital;
neither will give you huge enlargements. Large-format film *or digital*
will do huge enlargements.

Currently, large-format digital is a lot more expensive, and has
operating restrictions compared to large-format film, but resolution is
available.

Dave

In the old Kodachrome 25 days it was possible to put down 200 lp/mm on the
film. Then try
to calculate an equavialent min. no. of pixels on 24x36 to achicve 200
lp/mm. I guess you will need at
least 400 pixels/mm.

Max

"Matt" skrev i en meddelelse
...
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?

"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.

--
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...."

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