How many megapixels = 35mm film?

[usayit]

The finest paintings in the world were painted with both fine and broad brushes....

 

[hammy]

I wish that I could drive a Super CoolMobile 9000, or maybe get myself something to eat out of my Super CoolFridge 9000. That would be sweet.

 

[ksmattfish]

What's the comparison in megapixels to film?

Kodak says there is 50mp of info in a 35mm frame, but a print from 35mm film compares to a print from a 16mp DSLR.

It's always been more complicated than straight resolution comparisons anyway, and not all megapixels are created equal.

I'm looking at buying a 30D and want an indication of how sharp it is compared to a 35mm film camera. Would 35mm film be 8.2 megapixels like the 30D is? Next question is, how big can you blow up an 8.2 megapixel image before you start seeing grain? Like, what's an acceptable amount of blowing up? I'm just after an indication and a general idea.

I bought a 20D a year ago, and I have to say as a hardcore film geek for the last 12 years, I was stunned. I do think 35mm still has the edge in resolution over an 8mp x1.6 size sensor, but that difference disappears if you are shooting hand held, with zooms, etc... I don't like to enlarge ISO 400 35mm beyond 8"x12", but I think my 20D ISO 400 shots look good at 12"x18".

One issue is that diffraction caused by small apertures is a bigger issue with a smaller size sensor. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Get a 30D, you'll love it. Don't expect immediate perfection. It's a new tool, and it requires practice and experience. I do most of my own BW film processing and printing, but I was dropping color film off at the lab. Going from RAW file to color print takes new skills, but I'm enjoying color photography more than I ever have.

Keep using your film gear too! I think it's probably a fact that digital will surpass film in most technically measured ways in the next 5 years, 10 years at the most. That just means that there will be a lot of high resolution, HDR crap photography out there.

 

[Frankieplus]

I feel like too much of a niewbie asking this but hey..

Love the shots on your blog, Matt. How do you get that wide frame? I don't mean the wide angle lens you're using but the wide 'thin' frame that most of your shots have?

Is it the camera, the film?

Or is it basically a 'normal' shot that's been cropped that way?


-Frankie

 

[ksmattfish]

How do you get that wide frame? I don't mean the wide angle lens you're using but the wide 'thin' frame that most of your shots have?

You mean the thin black line? Some of that frame that shows on the main blog page is part of the blog template. The thin black line that you can see when you click on a pic is made in one of two ways.

If the scan is from a print, the thin black line is because I use a homemade neg carrier in my enlarger that is actually slightly larger than the neg. The line is from printing the clear film area around the edges of the neg frame.

If the scan is from a neg, the thin black line is created by increasing canvas size slightly with a black background in Adobe PS. I'm trying to make my neg scans look like the prints. Almost all my Widelux files are from neg scans, because the prints are usually too big for my scanner.

If you mean the panoramic format of the image, just yahoo "swing lens panoramic camera", or check out those links on my photoblog for Widelux specific info.

 

[thebeginning]

There's no way that a camera like the 30D can touch low ISO slide film in terms of quality, even in 35mm. With the proper scanning equipment, something like a low iso Provia slide kills anything coming from a standard consumer dslr. Show me a 150mb, 5000dpi grainless photo from a camera with a sensor of equivalent size and i'll believe it. The very high MP digital cameras and backs do, indeed, compete with the quality of 35mm. But most, including the 30D, do not.

oh I beg to differ, although like you said, it matters heavily on the equipment used (scanner, etc.). I do not do my own scanning, but take my slides to a pro lab where they do ultra high resolution drum scans before lowering the dpi to 500 (my own request) for output. But that is not what I was even talking about. Most of what you just said concerned resolution (high MP digital camera/back, etc.), which is not at all the issue here. The issue is grain/noise. If I could see grain in a scan of lower resolution, wouldnt that show all the more that the slides had significant grain? Also, I noticed grain in them even when I first looked through them on a light table. That is with iso 50 velvia and iso 100 provia. With my 20d, i actually have to manipulate my ISO 100 images quite a bit just to see noise at all.

Also, that whole 5000dpi is largely misleading. I'd like to see a print from a 500dpi that is noticeably worse than a 5000dpi print. nobody prints that high.

 

[ksmattfish]

Also, that whole 5000dpi is largely misleading. I'd like to see a print from a 500dpi that is noticeably worse than a 5000dpi print. nobody prints that high.

Who prints 500 dpi? All the pro labs I use print at around 300 dpi max.

 

[thebeginning]

usually that's the case (300dpi). a couple of places that i've been to have recommended more (say 500dpi), but it doesnt really matter. I do 300 usually for my digital prints because if it's higher the printing co. will lower it to 300 i think anyway. I have my slides at slightly higher dpi just to capture that least little bit past 300dpi.

 

[THORHAMMER]

the real awnser is a 35mm sensor will match film the best. Currently none are that large. mp doesnt really mean much without knowing the sensor size, a alot of point and shoot 6 mp cameras have tiny sensors and there is a lot of interpolation....

 

[thebeginning]

the real awnser is a 35mm sensor will match film the best. Currently none are that large. mp doesnt really mean much without knowing the sensor size, a alot of point and shoot 6 mp cameras have tiny sensors and there is a lot of interpolation....

good point about the megapixels. i think you might be mistaken about the sensor sizes though, as there are 3 cameras out now that have full frame 35mm sensors (canon 1ds (i believe), canon 1dsMkII, and canon 5d). Not to mention medium format digital backs which have sensors even larger.

 

[selmerdave]

Also, I noticed grain in them even when I first looked through them on a light table. That is with iso 50 velvia and iso 100 provia.

Considering it's nearly impossible to discern any grain whatsoever in a print that might be 100 times the size of the slide (9" x 14"?), you're basically claiming to have better than 100 times the vision of most 20/20 people.

Dave

 

[thebeginning]

i used magnifiers.

 

[THORHAMMER]

hey, i was reading the wrong info... you are totally right. I didnt realize they were actualy 24x36mm until i just looked it up... I guess that means I need to upgrade from my 300D pretty soon lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Alpha]

There is absolutely no way you could possibly see any grain looking at a Velvia 50 slide on a lightboard. I have a very difficult time finding grain with that film when I super zoom in on a 3000dpi scan.

 

[Rob]

There is absolutely no way you could possibly see any grain looking at a Velvia 50 slide on a lightboard. I have a very difficult time finding grain with that film when I super zoom in on a 3000dpi scan.

I dunno - I've mis-exposed velvia to the point of the film breaking down and going wierd - you could see the grainyness in a 35mm negative . I've not had any luck with slide film, particularly Velvia... I now hate it on principal!! But I'm wierd like that.