35mm Film: 174 megapixels!

epp_b · Dec 16, 2008

I'm sure some of you have read KR's most recent update already, but here it is:
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

So, with the best lens on a camera in the hands of the best photographer, scanned using the best equipment, Fuji Velvia 50 35mm slide film can give you the equivalent of a 174 megapixels from a digital camera that uses Bayer Interpolation (which, as far as I'm aware, is all of them), or 87 actual (clear) megapixels.

Interesting. And, yay, another excuse to shoot film!

Let the flame wars begin! :lol:

Big Mike · Dec 16, 2008

KR :thumbdown:

christopher walrath · Dec 16, 2008

There are are roughly 40 billion silver halide crystals in the average 35mm negative area (36mm x 24mm) of emulsion.

epp_b · Dec 16, 2008

That may be, but I said slide, not negative.

compur · Dec 16, 2008

When you see a great photo, does it matter how many little dots it has?

epp_b · Dec 16, 2008

Not unless it's dimensions are measured in feet. I just thought it was interesting because I'm a nerd, so I'll leave it at that

frXnz kafka · Dec 16, 2008

christopher walrath said:
There are are roughly 40 billion silver halide crystals in the average 35mm negative area (36mm x 24mm) of emulsion.

40,000 megacrystals?

djacobox372 · Dec 16, 2008

Whatever.... nobody is going to convince me that ANY 35mm film does any better then 12mp. It may look better, and have more dynamic range, but digital resolution has surpassed film resolution for the same surface area.

Josh66 · Dec 16, 2008

I know this information is buried in a thread somewhere, but I didn't want to spend 2 hours searching for it...

How do you calculate megapixels? Say an image is 4200x2700 pixels (14x9 @ 300 ppi), how many megapixels is that? Is it simply multiplying the two dimensions?
(4200*2700=11340000=11.34mp?)

edit
got it. I googled it and Ken Rockwell was the first result, lol. I was doing it right.

Dubious Drewski · Dec 16, 2008

If what Mr Rockwell is saying is true, then what the heck is going on here?

Why does the Nikon D700 noticeably outperform the Nikon F5 with the same lens?

frXnz kafka · Dec 16, 2008

Dubious Drewski said:
Why does the Nikon D700 noticeably outperform the Nikon F5 with the same lens?

Because KR isn't comparing resolving power of digital sensors to film. He's comparing the "data recording" ability of a pixel to that of a crystal. And he's not even doing it very scientifically.

Dubious Drewski · Dec 16, 2008

Well, I can respect his tastes, but if he's going to promote an agenda based on fuzzy logic, I don't know if I can respect his statements.

frXnz kafka said:
Because KR isn't comparing resolving power of digital sensors to film. He's comparing the "data recording" ability of a pixel to that of a crystal. And he's not even doing it very scientifically.

So if he isn't comparing the quality of the end result, then what's his point? I bet silver crystals are more soluble in water than megapixels are, but that's irrelevant to the photograph, now isn't it.

frXnz kafka · Dec 16, 2008

Dubious Drewski said:
Well, I can respect his tastes, but if he's going to promote an agenda based on fuzzy logic, I don't know if I can respect his statements.

So if he isn't comparing the quality of the end result, then what's his point? I bet silver crystals are more soluble in water than megapixels are, but that's irrelevant to the photograph, now isn't it.

This is why most people don't respect the guy. He's just trying to 'prove' that film is better, and is going on the assumption that has followers will eat it up just because it makes some sense mathematically.

Just out of curiosity though, what are you guys using for fixer on the new Canon sensors? My old Sprint doesn't seem to be working.

epp_b · Dec 16, 2008

If what Mr Rockwell is saying is true, then what the heck is going on here?

What's going on there is unscientific BS done for advertising and ratings and for unartistic nerds to jizz all over.

The guy does have an engineering degree, so you've got to give him some credit when he talks about very technical things.

Dubious Drewski · Dec 16, 2008

epp_b said:
What's going on there is unscientific BS done for advertising and ratings and for unartistic nerds to jizz all over.

Sure. I completely agree with that. But then please tell me how their particular comparison in the video was invalid or irrelevant. What did they do wrong that makes you disregard the end result you saw? I mean, the two 75 meter posters were there, side by side for us to see. It was pretty clear.