Resolution Difference: Film vs Digital

[usayit]

Wow Traveler... you actually worked in bowel movements into the topic of photography.

That's a feat!

 

[djacobox372]

I think it's safe to say that digital has just about equaled or surpassed pro-quality film in terms of resolution for a given size sensor/film area.

BUT, the largest digital sensors available today are only 5x4 cm; that's only slightly bigger then 35mm film. A 6x7 medium format negative will trounce any digital slr. And then there's the costs difference $300 for a medium format film slr, or $30,000 for a medium format digital slr with less performance.

 

[djacobox372]

...the premise that film could print much larger than digital and still look good....

Any statement like that meaningless, and therefore inaccurate, simply because "film" is too undefined a term. There are many, many different films with a massive range of detail retention. Also, there are a range of digital sensors, all of varying resolution. Third, the statement makes no reference for the formats being compared.

Unless the comparison matches format and ISO or clearly mentions the differences it is invalid, period. When an excessively vague statement like "film beats digital" it should be ignored. The person making the statement is ignorant or thinks you are.

A British TV show did a comparision about a year ago, or so. They made a massive enlargement from each a 35mm film image (Kodachrome ??) and a digital image shot on a camera that had a sensor that matched the 35mm image in size. The enlargements were several stories tall and were hung over the outside of a multi-story building for comparison viewing. Care was taken to get very similar color, contrast, and brightness. The bottom line was that there was no real difference.

In general, today's state of the art digital sensors beat film for detail retention when the formats match and common moderate ISOs are used. When high ISOs are used film suffers faster than digital making digital's lead even greater. Only the very highest resolution B&W films challenge, and possibly beat, digital when formats match.

What digital camera do I use when comparing it to a 6x7 medium format film slr?? There isn't any.

To say you have to match sensor to film size to make a fair comparison is hogwash, by that knowledge some point and shoots may outperform a D3X, as their tiny little sensors do more with less space then the D3's big sensor.

 

[gsgary]

...the premise that film could print much larger than digital and still look good....

Any statement like that meaningless, and therefore inaccurate, simply because "film" is too undefined a term. There are many, many different films with a massive range of detail retention. Also, there are a range of digital sensors, all of varying resolution. Third, the statement makes no reference for the formats being compared.

Unless the comparison matches format and ISO or clearly mentions the differences it is invalid, period. When an excessively vague statement like "film beats digital" it should be ignored. The person making the statement is ignorant or thinks you are.

A British TV show did a comparision about a year ago, or so. They made a massive enlargement from each a 35mm film image (Kodachrome ??) and a digital image shot on a camera that had a sensor that matched the 35mm image in size. The enlargements were several stories tall and were hung over the outside of a multi-story building for comparison viewing. Care was taken to get very similar color, contrast, and brightness. The bottom line was that there was no real difference.

In general, today's state of the art digital sensors beat film for detail retention when the formats match and common moderate ISOs are used. When high ISOs are used film suffers faster than digital making digital's lead even greater. Only the very highest resolution B&W films challenge, and possibly beat, digital when formats match.

It was the Gadget Show

 

[gsgary]

I think it's safe to say that digital has just about equaled or surpassed pro-quality film in terms of resolution for a given size sensor/film area.

BUT, the largest digital sensors available today are only 5x4 cm; that's only slightly bigger then 35mm film. A 6x7 medium format negative will trounce any digital slr. And then there's the costs difference $300 for a medium format film slr, or $30,000 for a medium format digital slr with less performance.

What about 10x12 ? not sure it up it yet

 

[Garbz]

Care was taken to get very similar color, contrast, and brightness. The bottom line was that there was no real difference.

Really because the show itself came to the exact opposite conclusion. While the difference in terms of resolution is negligible there was much said about how very linear and natural the colour reproduction the digital print was.

Sure one of the things we love about film is it's non-linearity, especially when you blow the highlights of negatives, but there was most definitely a plainly visible difference between the two prints.

 

[the Virginian]

I remember shooting Tech Pan, from a 35mm frame one could make an enlargement equaling (same size photo) of a 4x5 negative.

I read an article that said because Tech Pan had better resolution capability than any commercially available lens that it was used to test lenses. It was also claimed to be capable of up to 11X14 prints. When I used it I found that 11X14 was the size needed just to match print papers' resolving power to the film's. Smaller print sizes compressed detail that could be seen in the neg with a loupe. A sweet film indeed.