So, I heard that film is about 16MP equilivant?

[prodigy2k7]

What is the MP equilivant for film? Also how many dots per inch is on a piece of film?

 

[Big Mike]

There are too many variables to directly compare a MP number to film. I did read an article, a few years ago, where the magazine staff (Pop Photo, I think) did several tests to compare the Canon 1Ds (or maybe the mark II) to 35mm film (Kodak 100, I forget the specific type/name). At that point, they concluded that the Canon was better, over all.

As for your other question...I don't know. I don't think it's that easy.

 

[compur]

This film claims it is equivalent to 500 MP.

 

[elemental]

When you say "film," do you mean 35mm?

What determines the working digital resolution of scanned negatives is (at least for now) often the resolution of the scanner, if you want a literal translation from film into digital. Also remember that there are many different film formats- smaller negatives like 110 have the lowest resolution and are the least enlargement friendly, while many large format films with their humongous negatives are often said to crush even the 22mp full-frame DSLRs in resolution (I wouldn't know firsthand).

 

[tasman]

I have heard that before too. 35mm film was the equivalent to 22 MP.

 

[reg]

while many large format films with their humongous negatives are often said to crush even the 22mp full-frame DSLRs in resolution (I wouldn't know firsthand).

They crush even the 50MP medium format DSLRs. Nothing will ever compare with 8x10 film, short of an 8x10 or MAYBE a 4x5 digital camera.

 

[ksmattfish]

They crush even the 50MP medium format DSLRs. Nothing will ever compare with 8x10 film, short of an 8x10 or MAYBE a 4x5 digital camera.

Currently available 4cm x 5cm digital sensors have greater resolution and dynamic range than 4x5 inch C41. Scanning backs that are significantly better than 8x10 film have been around for over 10 years, although they require very long exposures (10+ minutes) so they aren't practical in all situations. Professional digital studio cameras that surpass 8x10 film image quality with normal exposure times will be introduced within the next 10 years.

I agree with the above posts that there are a lot of variables that make it difficult to generalize comparisons of image quality between film and digital, but a large majority of serious enthusiasts and professional photographers, including myself, are of the opinion that most 8 mp APS DSLRs match or beat 35mm film at ISO 100, and once you get to ISO 400 and beyond there is little comparison.

 

[nealjpage]

Holy crap! Matt! Where have you been, bud?

 

[Jeff Canes]

Film and digital photography have different attitudes. Chose which one services your needs. As far as MP I agree with Matt[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

[Alpha]

If you're a meticulous film shooter, and you shoot slow, I would ballpark the native resolution of film at about 3000DPI, or higher in certain circumstances. From there you can do the math according to negative size.

 

[prodigy2k7]

So with film you can make a 100" long poster at 300 dpi?

 

[Jeff Canes]

^^^
That is the viewing distant?
Will the grain show?
Will the film be scanned?
How will it be printed?


I have a few older 24x36” prints made from 35mm film, they look nice to me, yes a little grainy compare to today digital standards but still nice prints[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[MathTeacherGuy]

Hi, I've been scanning a ton of my old negatives lately. Here is what I've found.

For Kodak Gold 100 negative film, the maximum resolution that provides any slight improvement is 4800 DPI. A 35mm negative is about 24mm x 36mm or about 1.4 square inches. 1.4 times 4800 squared or about 33 MegaPixel. I think that figure is a stretch from the truth, though. 2400 DPI is more like the actual capability of the film; it just scans slightly better at a higher resolution. 2400 DPI translates to about 8 MP.

One little added complication is that 8 MP isn't always 8 MP. The resolution of my 6 MP Canon S3 IS is lots better than that of most pocket point and shoots of the same resolution, but a 6 MP DSLR would kick my Canon's butt. Roughly the same facts hold for film SLRs ... my little Olympus XA pocket camera is cute but there is no way that it can give comparable resolution to even my ancient Minolta SRT-100 SLR.

Right now I'm finishing scanning some 800 and 1600 rolls I took about 10 years ago. The resolution of the 800 film (after 10 years of storage) is comparable to perhaps a 1 MP digital image from an early generation pocket digital camera like my Kodak DC-210 (may it rest in peace). Edge details are indistinct and colors are washed out just as with the stone-age digital camera.

-MathTeacherGuy:er:

 

[Helen B]

Hi, I've been scanning a ton of my old negatives lately. Here is what I've found.

For Kodak Gold 100 negative film, the maximum resolution that provides any slight improvement is 4800 DPI. A 35mm negative is about 24mm x 36mm or about 1.4 square inches. 1.4 times 4800 squared or about 33 MegaPixel. I think that figure is a stretch from the truth, though. 2400 DPI is more like the actual capability of the film; it just scans slightly better at a higher resolution. 2400 DPI translates to about 8 MP.

One little added complication is that 8 MP isn't always 8 MP. The resolution of my 6 MP Canon S3 IS is lots better than that of most pocket point and shoots of the same resolution, but a 6 MP DSLR would kick my Canon's butt. Roughly the same facts hold for film SLRs ... my little Olympus XA pocket camera is cute but there is no way that it can give comparable resolution to even my ancient Minolta SRT-100 SLR.

Right now I'm finishing scanning some 800 and 1600 rolls I took about 10 years ago. The resolution of the 800 film (after 10 years of storage) is comparable to perhaps a 1 MP digital image from an early generation pocket digital camera like my Kodak DC-210 (may it rest in peace). Edge details are indistinct and colors are washed out just as with the stone-age digital camera.

-MathTeacherGuy:er:

Which scanner did you use for these tests? If you are using a scanner to assess the resolution of film, don't you need to make sure that it isn't the scanner that is limiting the resolution rather than the film?

Thanks,
Helen

 

[Early]

Ten years ago, I scanned some Kodachrome 64 slides on an old low cost HP S20 that had a max 300 dpi output and got about 29 megabite tif files. Today, using a 12 megapixel digital camera at max resolution, I get 30 megabite files. This is for anyone who can do the math, but offhand, I'd say 12 megapixels aren't even close.