Derrel
Mr. Rain Cloud
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2009
- Messages
- 48,225
- Reaction score
- 18,941
- Location
- USA
- Website
- www.pbase.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
As to what megapixel size is equivalent to 35 mm film, over the years I have read differences of opinion. At one time many people seemed to think that 6 million pixels was about like most 35 mm slower speed slide film. Back in the days of the EOS 10 D a friend and I looked at studio lighted portraits that we had shot and we both felt that the 10D offered finer resolution of detail than 100 ASA color negative film from the 1980s. Specifically we were looking at a young toddler's eyelashes and eyebrows… We each felt that we could see more detail in the individual hairs of the eyebrow than we could see with 100 ISO 35mm color negative film. I personally believe that today's 24 megapixel APS-C sensors offer better resolution than did 35mm film, and I feel that the Nikon D800's 36 megapixel sensor offers resolution of fine detail about like 6 x 6 cm 100 to 160 ISO color negative film from the 1980s. Some film offers incredible fine detail: for example 4 x 5" color transparency film offers incredible fine detail, and I think that for fine detail resolution 4 x 5" transparency film is better than digital medium format of 100 megapixels.
Speaking of film: how are we using film? Are we scanning it with a desktop scanner? Or are we drum scanning it with a $10,000 Imacon? Are we taking film images and wet printing them?
What size of a piece of film are we talking about? A few years ago I saw a photograph of a rose garden, and it was shot with film of various sizes and with various digital cameras.The film was able to resolve individual rose blossoms in the garden, whereas the digital images could not resolve individual blossoms from a distance of roughly what looked to be about 30-40 meters. The issue in my opinion was one of the target. For example, many times we see comparisons of film and digital when a lens type test chart is photographed at roughly 100 times or so of the focal length of the lens, which is really not that far away, and most digital systems do pretty well. However in the above rose garden test, film did surprisingly well, better than most digital systems.
In the early days of digital imaging small scale close-up scenes looked pretty good on digital but large scale or landscape scenes looked poor.Today this is not really the case, as we now have access to 24 to 100 megapixel digital images with small format high-grade lenses that are capable of resolving extremely fine detail. A strange peculiarity--for many years,has been that small format lenses such as those for 35mm systems are capable of resolving very fine detail, whereas lenses designed to be used with larger film formats such as medium and large format do not need to be so bitingly sharp. We have to look at both the lenses and the film or digital format size. Resolving power and sharpness is dependent upon both the lens and the capture medium size.
My feeling is that today's 24 megapixel sensors are better than medium-speed 35 mm film, and are about equal with 100 ISO 6 x 6 or 6 x 7 transparency film.
The biggest issue in today's world is getting the most out of a piece of film… Many people are using desktop scanners which are not really, in my opinion, fully capable of getting the most out of a piece of film in most cases. Other people have access to really good scanners like the Fuji Frontier, or the Imacon drum scanners.
Speaking of film: how are we using film? Are we scanning it with a desktop scanner? Or are we drum scanning it with a $10,000 Imacon? Are we taking film images and wet printing them?
What size of a piece of film are we talking about? A few years ago I saw a photograph of a rose garden, and it was shot with film of various sizes and with various digital cameras.The film was able to resolve individual rose blossoms in the garden, whereas the digital images could not resolve individual blossoms from a distance of roughly what looked to be about 30-40 meters. The issue in my opinion was one of the target. For example, many times we see comparisons of film and digital when a lens type test chart is photographed at roughly 100 times or so of the focal length of the lens, which is really not that far away, and most digital systems do pretty well. However in the above rose garden test, film did surprisingly well, better than most digital systems.
In the early days of digital imaging small scale close-up scenes looked pretty good on digital but large scale or landscape scenes looked poor.Today this is not really the case, as we now have access to 24 to 100 megapixel digital images with small format high-grade lenses that are capable of resolving extremely fine detail. A strange peculiarity--for many years,has been that small format lenses such as those for 35mm systems are capable of resolving very fine detail, whereas lenses designed to be used with larger film formats such as medium and large format do not need to be so bitingly sharp. We have to look at both the lenses and the film or digital format size. Resolving power and sharpness is dependent upon both the lens and the capture medium size.
My feeling is that today's 24 megapixel sensors are better than medium-speed 35 mm film, and are about equal with 100 ISO 6 x 6 or 6 x 7 transparency film.
The biggest issue in today's world is getting the most out of a piece of film… Many people are using desktop scanners which are not really, in my opinion, fully capable of getting the most out of a piece of film in most cases. Other people have access to really good scanners like the Fuji Frontier, or the Imacon drum scanners.
Last edited: