8Mp Digital The Theoretical 35mm Quality Equivelant

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?

In article ,
"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?

what 35mm are you referring to?
A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best
slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it?

Lourens

In article ,
"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?

what 35mm are you referring to?
A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best
slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it?

Lourens

From: "Matt"

I heard someone say that 8Mp digital cameras were the equivalent to 35mm
film quality?

A dSLR like the Canon 1D Mark II with 8 Mpixels and a large sensor seems to
produce better large prints for me than ASA 100 speed Provia 100 F or Velvia
scanned with a 4,000 dpi scanner. I'm getting 16x20" prints from the 1D that
are better than any prints that size I've gotten with even Velvia 50.

But 8 Mpix from a smaller sensor camera might give different results, so "it
depends" on where the 8 Mpixels came from and what kind of film you are using
for your comparison.

Does this mean they have the theoretical equivalent resolution?

No, fine grained film still does better at resolving lines on test targets, yet
the digital prints look better ... how? Because of the lack of apparent grain.
Digital simply blows up better than film.

Are they the equivalent to 35mm?

Download some Mark II sample images from the Canon site and resize them
carefully and print them to see for yourself, though these jpegs aren't as
smooth as RAW file conversions.

Here's a good summary by Roger Clark of the film vs digital debate. Others
give digital a wider edge, still others feel film is much better, but what he
describes is close to the majority viewpoint.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

Bill

It actually comes down to "pixel" size. The smallest unit to record image
data. Colour film can typically record information down to about 60lines
pairs/mm which comes out to 120 "pixels" per mm. The 8mp is really not
relevant. It's the CCD array pixel size. The Canon 20D (an 8 Mp camera) has
a pixel size of 6.5 microns. That equates to 156 "pixels" per mm. The
trouble is, they are not full frame. So you can use more "pixels" with film
to record the same picture. That's where digital are currently behind. The
Canon 20D array is only 62% (1.6X multiplier) of the width of a 35mm frame.
That basically means a equivalent "pixel" size of 97 "pixels" per mm. Still
way off film resolution. Noise is also an issue (as is dynamic range), but
most digital cameras over filter an image. Using a film scanner and a noise
reduction algorithm (as is applied in a digital camera), you can come pretty
close to the same noise floor. When digital goes full frame for non-pro
cameras, then digital will be ahead.

Phil Fairman



"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?

Huh? 35mm is a size - 35mm is 35mm. 6MP is considered approximately
equivalent, so 8MP probably exceeds 35mm in terms of resolution.



The OP referred to print quality...you just brought up the idea of
resolution. Two different things.

"Lourens Smak" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"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?

what 35mm are you referring to?
A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best
slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it?

Lourens

My own film/digital comparisons hit an early snag when I couldn't find the
CF slot on my FM3a.

I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never
saw a single pixel...

What am I doing wrong?

--
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...."

"Lourens Smak" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"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?

what 35mm are you referring to?
A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best
slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it?

Lourens

My own film/digital comparisons hit an early snag when I couldn't find the
CF slot on my FM3a.

I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never
saw a single pixel...

What am I doing wrong?

--
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...."

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...
"Lourens Smak" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"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?

what 35mm are you referring to?
A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best
slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it?

Lourens

My own film/digital comparisons hit an early snag when I couldn't find the
CF slot on my FM3a.

I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never
saw a single pixel...

What am I doing wrong?


Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
anything to go by.

"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...
"Lourens Smak" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"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?

what 35mm are you referring to?
A Leica with optimum aperture set, on a tripod, loaded with the best
slide film available? Or a compact with iso 400 negative film in it?

Lourens

My own film/digital comparisons hit an early snag when I couldn't find the
CF slot on my FM3a.

I've looked at film under a microscope and a variety of loupes, and never
saw a single pixel...

What am I doing wrong?


Trying to be funny when it obviously isn't your forté if that post is
anything to go by.