35mm Film: 174 megapixels!

Besides pixel count, I think the colors, and transition between them is better. This may just be my opinion though. I love (and shoot) them both, so I can't hate on either.
 
A 35mm Velvia slide as the same resolution as a 6MP camera (Click). Oh no, wait, it has the resolution of a 22MP camera (Click). Oh no wait, wait, we got the calculations wrong, it is actually 174MP (Click)... and I am sure the list goes on if you do a quick Google search. My conclusion: who cares about these pseudo-scientific calculations? ;)
 
A 35mm Velvia slide as the same resolution as a 6MP camera (Click). Oh no, wait, it has the resolution of a 22MP camera (Click). Oh no wait, wait, we got the calculations wrong, it is actually 174MP (Click)... and I am sure the list goes on if you do a quick Google search. My conclusion: who cares about these pseudo-scientific calculations? ;)

Exactly how I feel.
 
Read on into the article...

So what? In your previous post you said you were not aware of sensors that did not use a Bayer pattern. The Foveon from Sigma does not and I just pointed out that an alternative to the Bayer pattern existed.
 
When you see a great photo, does it matter how many little dots it has?

If you can see the dots, it has too few. If you can't see the dots, then it does not matter.

skieur
 
Jesus, when I was first getting into photography I thought his site was the most useful thing on the planet, with its down-to-earth, real advice about the things that matter. The more I learn about photography, the more I detest him.

"The Nikon D40 is the best camera you can buy"

"The Nikon D3 is the best camera you can buy"

"Digital is rubbish, obsolescence that will be worth nothing in a years' time... Oh, just ignore the fact that I own almost the ENTIRE CURRENT Nikon digital system and some of Canon's, too!"

"Film rules, 4x5 is the way to go"

When laypeople compare film to digital, they aren't comparing film to digital. They are usually only comparing scans of film to digital.

^ That really amused me. It is practically REQUIREMENT for any shot film to be scanned to be worked on digitally nowadays anyway, so one way or another you end up with digital files. So to compare scans of film to digital is the natural thing to do. Now, wait a second, to get a 6MP scan of a 35mm roll of film that I might as well have shot on my D40, I need to splash out £20, and if I were to buy a good scanner it would cost thousands. To REALLY take advantage of the resolution film can offer, I'm looking at £50-100 per exposure for drum scanning. Can you imagine how much lovley, brand new digital equipment I could have gotten for the price I paid to scan, say, as little as ten exposures from film at this price?

Don't get me wrong, I love the look and dynamic range of the slow films my favourite landscapers use, and some day, I hope to be able to afford it. I just hate the way Ken Rockwell is trying to imply that film is the way to go even for consumers. First he does his Megapixel Myth article where he says they don't matter, THEN he goes on to write an article arguing for film because of its pixel count? WTF?

Oh, and another contradiction. He claims to have been a part of the "worldwide D3X boycott". A few days later... And he reports he himself has ordered one :lmao: His excuse? To show US how it performs... I guess some of us just can't restrain our G.A.S.
 
Well, now we all know the truth. Any old 35mm camera will outperform Hasselblad's new 50mp monster. Silly professionals.
 
Now my fil experience is limited, but i'll chime in what I know.

Shooting negative film, no way does it outresolve 12+ MP DSLR's. I wouldn't even think of printing 20x30 off of 35mm Tmax. The higher the ISO's, the wider the gap.

Slide film, I'm not sure. most of the slide film i've shot is on 4x5, and i've never had it printed or scanned, same goes for the 35mm slide i've shot, none of my shots were good enough to print.


I will say this though, I got 20 someodd rolls of free film the other week. Granted, it's expired, but I shot two rolls the other day just for kicks instead of my digital camera and I tell you what, The 1 hour snapshots sure have alot more character then the "sterility" of a D700. The anticipation to see how they turned out and the look of cheap Kodak Max and the C-41 B&W is just beutiful in it's own way. If I had shot digital, we would have looked at them on the LCD, and thought meh, should have done this, or while we were taking shapshots, tried to redo some things. With film, what you shoot is what you get, you don't know if it's good or bad until it's developed. You don't have to think so much and in a different way, enjoy what's going on more.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top