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

[Bifurcator]

Early, TIFF can have huffman compression and I think another too. Think WinZip inside the file format. Was one compressed maybe?

This film claims it is equivalent to 500 MP.

Yeah. LOL! Pretty funny claim.

Did you take a look at their scan of it at what looks like about 20 MP?

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Pictures_files/page9_4.jpg

It's already come apart. To me that looks about the same as an enlarged (resized) image of about 8mp. It might be their lens or focus I dunno but at that rez there's not a sharp edge in the frame except ultra high contrast street markings and a blow-up of a 4mp image will maintain that. The trees, buildings, grass, cars and most of the boats are toast at 20mp. If I gauge by that sample and the other samples there I guess the film has a max scan res of about 12mp before it starts getting soft and 20mp or so before everything but the high-contrast edges fall apart. 500mp huh? Teeheehee... someone needs to sell some film I think.

The 4000 dpi (about 20mp?) bicycle image on front looks better but still it seems obvious they're at the upper limits and parts of it look like it's been sharpened to me - I guess maybe by the scanner package? On top of that notice again that other than the ultra high contrast areas the image looks almost like a soft-focus lens was used. Signs that it's being scanned above it's equivalent digital resolution.

Oh well, sales people huh?

 

[christopher walrath]

You wanna be technical? There are around 40BILLION silver halide crystals in a 35mm negative. That's 40 billion microscopic pieces that can individually record the presence of a reflected photon. I think I heard somewhere that a billion in digispeak was a gig. So, technically speaking a 35mm negative would equivocate a 40 GP camera.

Wait for it . . . wait for it . . .

REALITY. No, you're probably not gonna get better resolution from a TMX neg than you would from an image captured with an H3D. 4x5 film, that's a different story.

Film and digital will have comparable image quality up to a point. Large Format negatives at extreme enlargements will blow anything electrical out of the water.

 

[fabric]

the latent image exposed on a negative is only a few atoms of silver compound, otherwise the exposure would take hours not milliseconds. the development-phase amplifies this up into the millions, giving a visible image.

a general equivalence is 20-25 megapixels for 135 film, 50
for 120 film and 100mp+ for sheet film. that is assuming a
tripod, pukka optics are used and mirror locked-up on an SLR.
.. and thats 20million 'good pixels', apparently. a handheld
shot in a everyday situation is a lot less. (apparently).

we all have to pedantically keep reminding ourselves, "megapixels" is not such a useful way of considering image
resolution. size of sensor and optics are more pertinent.

 

[prodigy2k7]

Film and digital will have comparable image quality up to a point. Large Format negatives at extreme enlargements will blow anything electrical out of the water.

I would hope so! Electrical isn't supposed to be in water!

 

[ksmattfish]

A couple of articles from some serious photo geeks.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

You shoot with whatever 35mm film you want. I'll shoot with a Canon 5D 12.8mp DSLR. We'll make 20"x30" prints and hang them next to each other on the wall. It won't even be close.

 

[djacobox372]

I shoot both film and digital, and I find that 10mp digital photos capture as much detail as the finest 35mm film... HOWEVER, film grain is a lot more pleasing to look at, so blowups of 35mm film look a bit better then 10mp digital even if there isn't any more detectable detail.

I think it's safe to say that 12mp = 35mm film

 

[Helen B]

I wish that my 12 megapixel D3 was capable of recording as much detail as I can get from the best current 35 mm films, and that it had the same dynamic range.

Best,
Helen

 

[djacobox372]

I wish that my 12 megapixel D3 was capable of recording as much detail as I can get from the best current 35 mm films, and that it had the same dynamic range.

Best,
Helen

100% agreement on the dynamic range issue, this is where film has it ALL over digital.

As for detail, my own observations along with every detailed comparison I've ever seen done has shown film to fall a bit short of 12mp digital. If you know of a detailed article that proves the reverse please send it to me, I'm very curious.

thx