8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

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.
The 4800 dpi scanners will let you print a nice 14x20. When 9600 DPI
scanners arrive, the prints you can get from a negative/slide will be almost
life size. Why? Because the resolution stored in a sharp photo is
incredible,
and good scanners are able to capture more and more of it.

A 4800 DPI Scanner gets you about 128Mb per shot. Any 128Mb
Digital cameras out there? Forget about 512Mb cameras (which
would be needed to keep up with 9600 DPI scanners).

Even high end digital cameras (within reach of most of use) are still
stretching it to put out a good 8x10. When Digital cameras, if ever,
produce more resolution than the best available 35mm scanner, then
perhaps the tide will have turned. We are a long way from that day.

Regards,

Beau


"KBob" wrote in message
...
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.

In message , I,
wrote:

In message ,
John Miller wrote:

Here's a question from another angle (and if it's been thrashed out
before, my apologies): Given a full-frame (24mm x 36mm) sensor, how many
Mpx are required to take full advantage of today's best lenses? Being
retired and now using my gear for pleasure, not for income, I'm kind of
holding out for ~12 Mpx, but that's really just a S.W.A.G. What are the
facts?

Well, with the sharpest lens I own, the Tamron 9mm f/2.8 Di macro, I can
resolve as well (obviously with slightly lower pixel-level contrast)
with my Canon 20D, with a 2x TC, as I can without it (MTF curves limited
by sensor, not lens). Doing the math for full frame,
(1.6^2)*(2^2)*8.2MP = 84MP. That is, an 84MP full-frame sensor of the
same quality scaled down would resolve as least as good without the
teleconverter as the 20D does with it, in the center crop.

Here's a sample; this is on the 20D with the 90mm Tamron Macro and the
Tamron SP 2x TC. This is a pixel-for-pixel view (AKA "100% crop"); the
full image would be 30 to 40 inches wide on a typical monitor:

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/36586492


--


John P Sheehy

"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

"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

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.

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.

Harvey posted:

"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

And a tif would be 25.03 MB at that size and would print 11.67"x8.33" @
300 dpi for offset. I wouldn't want to tell a customer that I can print
a 35mm picture any bigger than that using offset.

I would get lynched when they saw the effect

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

Harvey posted:

"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

And a tif would be 25.03 MB at that size and would print 11.67"x8.33" @
300 dpi for offset. I wouldn't want to tell a customer that I can print
a 35mm picture any bigger than that using offset.

I would get lynched when they saw the effect

--
Petros
Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos

"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...

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

"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...

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