If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
"Zebedee" wrote: "Chris Loffredo" wrote: Zebedee wrote: I have 50x60 (cm) B&W photo paper which I use for the right pictures. I doubt 3 (or 6) megapixels will do the job... 50cm = 19.7 inches 60cm = 23.6 inches 19.7 x 150 = 2955 pixels 23.6 x 150 = 3540 pixels 2955 x 3540 = 10.4607 megapixels It could be a little stretch for a 6mp camera or you could even use the Kodak 14mp SLR Having said that, it's a really unusual size and more suited to medium format than for 35mm. 20x24 is a pitiful joke from 35mm B&W films, even Tech Pan. If one has any sense of quality imaging at all, 11x14 is MF (645) territory. 20x24 from 6x7 would be OK, but would look better if you used LF. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
"Zebedee" wrote: "Chris Loffredo" wrote: Zebedee wrote: I have 50x60 (cm) B&W photo paper which I use for the right pictures. I doubt 3 (or 6) megapixels will do the job... 50cm = 19.7 inches 60cm = 23.6 inches 19.7 x 150 = 2955 pixels 23.6 x 150 = 3540 pixels 2955 x 3540 = 10.4607 megapixels It could be a little stretch for a 6mp camera or you could even use the Kodak 14mp SLR Having said that, it's a really unusual size and more suited to medium format than for 35mm. 20x24 is a pitiful joke from 35mm B&W films, even Tech Pan. If one has any sense of quality imaging at all, 11x14 is MF (645) territory. 20x24 from 6x7 would be OK, but would look better if you used LF. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
"Zebedee" wrote in message ... I spent ages working out all the details. I came to the conclusion that if you measured the area of a perfect print from a 35mm negative or 35mm slide in inches and then divided the dimensions by 150 you'd be able to work out the vertical/horizontal pixels of the image. Then simply multiply the two together to get megapixels. That's the theory anyway. In practice, how big is the biggest print you normally make? If your normal biggest print is 10x8 then 3 megapixels is all you ever need (two at a pinch). But the biggest limitation is your printer. How many of us can afford an A3 or greater printer or even the ink to make A3 prints? How many A4 prints can you hang on your wall? I decided to settle on 3 megapixels. It's adequate for my needs and as with slides, I ensure my photos are perfect before I squeeze the button. I claim 3 megapixels is the perfect equivalent of 35mm for most purposes. 6mp just eats up storage space for no visible advantage. -- Yours Zebedee (Claiming asylum in an attempt to escape paying his debts to Dougal and Florence) You may claim it, but that don't make it so. There is a decided difference between files from my Canon D30 (3mp) and my wife's 10D (6mp) cameras. 3mp is most definitely not the equivalent of film for anyone who is enlarging beyond 4x6. I have a Canon 9000 printer that prints photo quality A3+ prints, we both regularly print to that size and A4, we have about 20 16x20 inch frames hanging on the wall in our stairwell, alone, as we speak. I have a show coming up in which more than half the images need to be printed A3+. Your theory won't work for me, and I'll bet that in a short time, you'll realize that you are dissatisfied with the images you are getting utilizing that theory, too. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
"Zebedee" wrote in message ... I spent ages working out all the details. I came to the conclusion that if you measured the area of a perfect print from a 35mm negative or 35mm slide in inches and then divided the dimensions by 150 you'd be able to work out the vertical/horizontal pixels of the image. Then simply multiply the two together to get megapixels. That's the theory anyway. In practice, how big is the biggest print you normally make? If your normal biggest print is 10x8 then 3 megapixels is all you ever need (two at a pinch). But the biggest limitation is your printer. How many of us can afford an A3 or greater printer or even the ink to make A3 prints? How many A4 prints can you hang on your wall? I decided to settle on 3 megapixels. It's adequate for my needs and as with slides, I ensure my photos are perfect before I squeeze the button. I claim 3 megapixels is the perfect equivalent of 35mm for most purposes. 6mp just eats up storage space for no visible advantage. -- Yours Zebedee (Claiming asylum in an attempt to escape paying his debts to Dougal and Florence) You may claim it, but that don't make it so. There is a decided difference between files from my Canon D30 (3mp) and my wife's 10D (6mp) cameras. 3mp is most definitely not the equivalent of film for anyone who is enlarging beyond 4x6. I have a Canon 9000 printer that prints photo quality A3+ prints, we both regularly print to that size and A4, we have about 20 16x20 inch frames hanging on the wall in our stairwell, alone, as we speak. I have a show coming up in which more than half the images need to be printed A3+. Your theory won't work for me, and I'll bet that in a short time, you'll realize that you are dissatisfied with the images you are getting utilizing that theory, too. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
Gordon Moat writes:
[an *extremely* detailed and clear discussion of many of the issues in the topi in the subject line] First, *very* nice explanation! It obviously involved quite a bit of work. Second, I think one very important point often missed in this discussion is that digital and film images enlarge entirely *differently*. Even a first-rate slow film image acquires grain (clumps) as it's enlarged enough. A digital image *doesn't*. It gradually gets softer, but there is no underlying grain structure to appear (the underlying pixel structure doesn't appear because the decent interpolation algorithms prevent it). An experienced film photographer looking for flaws in a big print from digital may be looking for the wrong thing; one of the things I look for is how the grain is doing, and in a print from a digital original, I'm not going to find any. This difference in how they enlarge probably accounts for part of the wide range of discussion about what "equivalent" resolutions are. Some people mind grain more than others, some people's eyes are probably more attuned to noticing some kinds of softness or missing details than others, so they'll have different tolerances for various size prints from film and digital originals. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
Gordon Moat writes:
[an *extremely* detailed and clear discussion of many of the issues in the topi in the subject line] First, *very* nice explanation! It obviously involved quite a bit of work. Second, I think one very important point often missed in this discussion is that digital and film images enlarge entirely *differently*. Even a first-rate slow film image acquires grain (clumps) as it's enlarged enough. A digital image *doesn't*. It gradually gets softer, but there is no underlying grain structure to appear (the underlying pixel structure doesn't appear because the decent interpolation algorithms prevent it). An experienced film photographer looking for flaws in a big print from digital may be looking for the wrong thing; one of the things I look for is how the grain is doing, and in a print from a digital original, I'm not going to find any. This difference in how they enlarge probably accounts for part of the wide range of discussion about what "equivalent" resolutions are. Some people mind grain more than others, some people's eyes are probably more attuned to noticing some kinds of softness or missing details than others, so they'll have different tolerances for various size prints from film and digital originals. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
"Zebedee" writes:
"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message ... Zebedee wrote: I have 50x60 (cm) B&W photo paper which I use for the right pictures. I doubt 3 (or 6) megapixels will do the job... 50cm = 19.7 inches 60cm = 23.6 inches 19.7 x 150 = 2955 pixels 23.6 x 150 = 3540 pixels 2955 x 3540 = 10.4607 megapixels It could be a little stretch for a 6mp camera or you could even use the Kodak 14mp SLR Having said that, it's a really unusual size and more suited to medium format than for 35mm. I have, over the years, been more unhappy than not in printing 35mm up to a size slightly smaller than that -- 16x20. I have a 16x24 print (slightly smaller than the example under discussion) from a 6mp shot from my Fuji S2 that looks better than the 16x20 prints I've had made from film. But I haven't worked very hard on making first-rate 16x20 prints from 35mm; I gave up fairly early. Which also means I haven't tried it with modern films. Still, the 16x24 inkjet print looks *great*. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
"Zebedee" writes:
"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message ... Zebedee wrote: I have 50x60 (cm) B&W photo paper which I use for the right pictures. I doubt 3 (or 6) megapixels will do the job... 50cm = 19.7 inches 60cm = 23.6 inches 19.7 x 150 = 2955 pixels 23.6 x 150 = 3540 pixels 2955 x 3540 = 10.4607 megapixels It could be a little stretch for a 6mp camera or you could even use the Kodak 14mp SLR Having said that, it's a really unusual size and more suited to medium format than for 35mm. I have, over the years, been more unhappy than not in printing 35mm up to a size slightly smaller than that -- 16x20. I have a 16x24 print (slightly smaller than the example under discussion) from a 6mp shot from my Fuji S2 that looks better than the 16x20 prints I've had made from film. But I haven't worked very hard on making first-rate 16x20 prints from 35mm; I gave up fairly early. Which also means I haven't tried it with modern films. Still, the 16x24 inkjet print looks *great*. -- David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/ Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/ Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
nitzsche wrote:
OK, I'll take a shot at it... It used to be "Film is cheap,' now it's "Cameras are cheap." 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway? - For practical purposes, it's infinite. 2. What about the print? 300dpi - Unless you're printing posters, it's not relevant. But I want to *know* exactly how large prints you can make at "standard" resolution with the different formats. 3. exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean - 6.3 megapixels is 6,291,456 sensors. So, it's *really* equivalent to about 2M of true RGB data??? 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned interpolation be measured - Film will almost always be better, but it's what the outside eyes see that matters. 5. geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc. - That's a lens issues, not sensor/film issues There are lens issues, but those are not the ones I'm talking about. CCDs at least do have the problem that the light sensitivity of each pixel or sensor is not quite the same. And there may be varying offsets, too, i.e. each pixel doesn't quite have the same opinion on what "black" is. Also, the individual sensors aren't necessarily evenly distributed or positioned exactly right. Then there is the "smear" between adjacent pixels, which is one of the arguments against CCD and for CMOS, I think. 6. And the chromic aberration effects? - As far as I know, all digicams are prone to purple fringing, which is something you don't see on any cheap slr. My two cents worth. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?
nitzsche wrote:
OK, I'll take a shot at it... It used to be "Film is cheap,' now it's "Cameras are cheap." 1. What is the resolution of a 35mm film anyway? - For practical purposes, it's infinite. 2. What about the print? 300dpi - Unless you're printing posters, it's not relevant. But I want to *know* exactly how large prints you can make at "standard" resolution with the different formats. 3. exactly does e.g. 6 megapixels mean - 6.3 megapixels is 6,291,456 sensors. So, it's *really* equivalent to about 2M of true RGB data??? 4. Can the inaccuracy associated with the above mentioned interpolation be measured - Film will almost always be better, but it's what the outside eyes see that matters. 5. geometric distortions, noise, flat field bias etc. - That's a lens issues, not sensor/film issues There are lens issues, but those are not the ones I'm talking about. CCDs at least do have the problem that the light sensitivity of each pixel or sensor is not quite the same. And there may be varying offsets, too, i.e. each pixel doesn't quite have the same opinion on what "black" is. Also, the individual sensors aren't necessarily evenly distributed or positioned exactly right. Then there is the "smear" between adjacent pixels, which is one of the arguments against CCD and for CMOS, I think. 6. And the chromic aberration effects? - As far as I know, all digicams are prone to purple fringing, which is something you don't see on any cheap slr. My two cents worth. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |
Digital Imaging vs. (Digital and Film) Photography | Bob Monaghan | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 19th 04 05:48 PM |