Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Digital is best but...

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 3:45:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12? Does
this mean in time digital will be as good when it gets to those figures or
is it already as good in quality ?
Digital photography in my opinion is the best thing to come from all this
computer technology these days because it is real and practical.

More about : digital

February 4, 2005 3:45:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote in message
news:K7KMd.147436$K7.142779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12?
Does
> this mean in time digital will be as good when it gets to those figures or
> is it already as good in quality ?
> Digital photography in my opinion is the best thing to come from all this
> computer technology these days because it is real and practical.
>
That is the highest number I have ever seen. I would place 35mm film in the
real World at between 6 to 16 megapixels. That would be film like Fuji Astia
at the high end, and consumer grade colour negative film at the low end.
There is NO LENS made that will resolve 60 megapixels. 60 mp work out to a
area of 20,000x30,000 based on the 2:3 ratio and would assume I could make a
photo quality print 100"x150" or 8.3'x12.5' Please inform me what film can
do that?
February 4, 2005 3:45:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> a écrit dans le message de
news:K7KMd.147436$K7.142779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Film shoots in 60mpixels

your kidding , right ? A 35 mm film is like a 14 mp sensor.

And there are already many 12mp , 16mp, 20mp , 22mp sensors on the market.
Im sure you cant find even better than that.
Related resources
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 3:55:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:45:30 GMT, "Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote:

>Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12? Does

Where do you get this "60mpixels" number?


*******************************************************

"Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission."

The Atlanta Declaration
-- L. Neil Smith
http://www.lneilsmith.com/
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 4:04:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:45:30 GMT, "Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote:

>Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12? Does
>this mean in time digital will be as good when it gets to those figures or
>is it already as good in quality ?
>Digital photography in my opinion is the best thing to come from all this
>computer technology these days because it is real and practical.
>
>
I think this is thew wrong question; it's like asking if an Escalade
is better than a Dodge Magnum. After all, they are both just glorified
station wagons.

Trying to compare digital to film is tricky; what characteristics are
you going to compare?
For most people, the proof is in the prints. A 4x6 print is pretty
much the standard in the US. A 2MP digital P&S camera will output
prints that easily rival prints from a film SLR camera, to the average
viewer. So, in this comparison, there's no difference.

But, change things, and use, say, professional photographers instead
of the average person, and use magazine editors instead of the average
snapshot viewer, and we get a different outcome. That 2MP P&S camera
is no longer a viable choice,and the film used must be matched to the
situation.
In this case, digital is making great inroads into film's territory.
Many recently film-only mags are switching to digital, as they come to
the realization that there's very little actual end-result difference
on the printed page, and that digital makes their job much easier.

For specialized cases (extremely large posters, for example), film
*may* hold an advantage. But I wonder, if it does, how long that will
last.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 4:14:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

From what I have read, the only way to compare them relates to the grain in
the film and the noise in the digital file. At 35mm the best digital
cameras are supposed to be comparable to the best film cameras. I don't
know about medium or large format cameras.

Digital is also far more expensive than a comparable film camera....



"Tonny" <mailto:Tonny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:K7KMd.147436$K7.142779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12?
Does
> this mean in time digital will be as good when it gets to those figures or
> is it already as good in quality ?
> Digital photography in my opinion is the best thing to come from all this
> computer technology these days because it is real and practical.
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 4:31:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I bought a book by Philip Andrews named 'The Digital Photography Manual' in
it he says an average ISO film is estimated to have sixty million light
sensitive grains within one 35mm frame. Some specialist studios are capable
of 16 million pixels for digital.


"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:q4s601lj9q60g8oofqhqqrqgmtedpdo20d@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:45:30 GMT, "Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote:
>
> >Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12?
Does
>
> Where do you get this "60mpixels" number?
>
>
> *******************************************************
>
> "Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
> fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
> Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
> Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
> weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
> -- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission."
>
> The Atlanta Declaration
> -- L. Neil Smith
> http://www.lneilsmith.com/
February 4, 2005 4:31:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote in message
news:LOKMd.147476$K7.55347@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I bought a book by Philip Andrews named 'The Digital Photography Manual'
in
> it he says an average ISO film is estimated to have sixty million light
> sensitive grains within one 35mm frame. Some specialist studios are
capable
> of 16 million pixels for digital.
>
Grain are not pixels. Most experts will rely on resolving power , which for
a film such as Fuji Astia is around 150 lpmm (24x36) will yield 19,440,000
19.4 million lines but these lines are obscured by film grain and the fact
that film is a multi-layered matrix so I would estimate maybe 15% loss to be
generous, ergo 16 megapixels. A Canon 1DS mk.II will easily match that, and
beat most other films.
February 4, 2005 4:31:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote in message
news:K7KMd.147436$K7.142779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12?
> Does
> this mean in time digital will be as good when it gets to those figures or
> is it already as good in quality ?
> Digital photography in my opinion is the best thing to come from all this
> computer technology these days because it is real and practical.
>
>
>
60mpix?? I've heard figures like 6mp but never 60 when we're talking about
35mm. If you're talking medium or large format then you may have a point.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 5:08:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:31:23 GMT, "Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote:

>I bought a book by Philip Andrews named 'The Digital Photography Manual' in
>it he says an average ISO film is estimated to have sixty million light
>sensitive grains within one 35mm frame. Some specialist studios are capable
>of 16 million pixels for digital.

Each grain has the recording capability of a 24 bit RGB pixel does it?

No.

Thought not.

You can't compare apples to oranges. A single piece of grain is NOT a
pixel.

Re-read the piece, if it claims 35mm is equivalent to 60Mpixels then
either burn the book or take it back and get a refund (after some
serious red scribbling on the page involved, warning the next buyer)

--
Owamanga!
February 4, 2005 5:08:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c070159a03ur29pm7735qotu557g4cepc@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:31:23 GMT, "Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote:
>
> >I bought a book by Philip Andrews named 'The Digital Photography Manual'
in
> >it he says an average ISO film is estimated to have sixty million light
> >sensitive grains within one 35mm frame. Some specialist studios are
capable
> >of 16 million pixels for digital.
>
> Each grain has the recording capability of a 24 bit RGB pixel does it?
>
> No.
>
> Thought not.
>
> You can't compare apples to oranges. A single piece of grain is NOT a
> pixel.
>
> Re-read the piece, if it claims 35mm is equivalent to 60Mpixels then
> either burn the book or take it back and get a refund (after some
> serious red scribbling on the page involved, warning the next buyer)
>
I agree!

Grain only records light, not colour. Film requires a dye matrix and filters
to record colour. So depending on what film (3 layer vs. 4 layer) the grain
will record colour or not record colour based on what filter (dye layer)
blocked or transmitted light. The film is processed, the silver is bleached
away (all 60 million grains!) and what is left are the coupled dyes. As not
all 60 million grains get exposed. So I would say 6-20 megapixels is what
film is.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 5:22:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <K7KMd.147436$K7.142779@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
Tonny <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote:
>Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12?

6*7 medium format fine grained reversal film perhaps, but certainly not 35mm
negative film.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 5:53:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

But a single grain is not equal to a pixel. A grain reacts to the incidence
of light i.e. it is activated if exposed to light, otherwise is not
activated.
A grain is therefore equal to a single bit, not a pixel. To get a more
realistic comparison, divide the number of grains by the number of bits
that make up a typical pixel i.e. 60 million/14 = about 4.3 mpixels.
Obviously this is very simplistic as many other factors such as
noise are relevant, but is is a good rule of thumb.

I find that this ties in well with my findings for the 6mpixel D100 -
it give results that are much better than for 35mm film of comparible
sensitivity such as Provia 100.

Graham


"Tonny" <mailto:Tonny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:LOKMd.147476$K7.55347@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I bought a book by Philip Andrews named 'The Digital Photography Manual'
in
> it he says an average ISO film is estimated to have sixty million light
> sensitive grains within one 35mm frame. Some specialist studios are
capable
> of 16 million pixels for digital.
>
>
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:q4s601lj9q60g8oofqhqqrqgmtedpdo20d@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:45:30 GMT, "Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote:
> >
> > >Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12?
> Does
> >
> > Where do you get this "60mpixels" number?
> >
> >
> > *******************************************************
> >
> > "Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
> > fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
> > Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
> > Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
> > weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
> > -- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission."
> >
> > The Atlanta Declaration
> > -- L. Neil Smith
> > http://www.lneilsmith.com/
>
>
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:08:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote in message
news:K7KMd.147436$K7.142779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12?
Does
> this mean in time digital will be as good when it gets to those figures or
> is it already as good in quality ?
> Digital photography in my opinion is the best thing to come from all this
> computer technology these days because it is real and practical.
>
>
>
Hi All,
This may not be what the poster asked for but I think it's a relevant "real
world" example.
I live in the UK and about 5-6 months ago a TV programme called "The Gadget
Show" took studio photos of the female presenter with both film and digital
cameras. High end cameras, pro photographer, same pose and lighting.
Similiar setup to a magazine cover shoot.
After processing etc they had both photographs printed professionally on
segments that made up two, approx. 20feet x 80 feet posters. They then hung
both "posters" on a tall building side by side. The result was that you
couldn't tell which was which! The photographers opinion was that the
digital prints very slightly softer look was, for this subject, more
appealing than the slightly harder film image. It was only whilst using
binoculars (huge image size remember), that a definitive difference could be
seen at the high contrast edges, and even this wasn't unpleasant.
BTW the large numbers of press photographers who came to record the
experiment were all using digital.
As far as I was concerned it showed me what digital was capable of and
nullified my arguments against. I now have two digital cameras and plan on
getting a Canon 20D before the summer.
Dave.
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:21:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 14:53:36 -0000, "gsum" <gsum@bst.com> wrote:

>But a single grain is not equal to a pixel. A grain reacts to the incidence
>of light i.e. it is activated if exposed to light, otherwise is not
>activated.
>A grain is therefore equal to a single bit, not a pixel. To get a more
>realistic comparison, divide the number of grains by the number of bits
>that make up a typical pixel i.e. 60 million/14 = about 4.3 mpixels.
>Obviously this is very simplistic as many other factors such as
>noise are relevant, but is is a good rule of thumb.
>
>I find that this ties in well with my findings for the 6mpixel D100 -
>it give results that are much better than for 35mm film of comparible
>sensitivity such as Provia 100.
>
>Graham

This (your last paragraph) is really all that matters, books and
websites that make weird mathematical comparisons are all very well,
but for me it came down to this:

How good a scan can I get from a standard negative or slides (the
stuff I used to put in my N80) on a reasonably decent slide scanner (A
Nikon Coolscan IVED) compared to the image today's DSLRs can produce.

The DLSR won. It's that simple.

For the most part, I don't like grain. If I want grain, I'll add it in
using Photoshop.

Add in all the nice things, cost advantage etc that a purely digital
workflow brings and the decision to spend all that money on a DLSR
body is a no-brainer.

The D70 has been a real treat, giving me functionality I either
couldn't afford to use on my N80 (bracketing and 3fps), or just didn't
have (1/500th flash sync, ISO can be changed from shot to shot, 180
shots on one 'roll', costs nothing to take a photo and instant
feedback esp. useful for flash photography).

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 9:04:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dave E" <david.az@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4eMMd.457$8G5.49@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> "Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote in message
> news:K7KMd.147436$K7.142779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12?
> Does
>> this mean in time digital will be as good when it gets to those figures
>> or
>> is it already as good in quality ?
>> Digital photography in my opinion is the best thing to come from all this
>> computer technology these days because it is real and practical.
>>
>>
>>
> Hi All,
> This may not be what the poster asked for but I think it's a relevant
> "real
> world" example.
> I live in the UK and about 5-6 months ago a TV programme called "The
> Gadget
> Show" took studio photos of the female presenter with both film and
> digital
> cameras. High end cameras, pro photographer, same pose and lighting.
> Similiar setup to a magazine cover shoot.
> After processing etc they had both photographs printed professionally on
> segments that made up two, approx. 20feet x 80 feet posters. They then
> hung
> both "posters" on a tall building side by side. The result was that you
> couldn't tell which was which! The photographers opinion was that the
> digital prints very slightly softer look was, for this subject, more
> appealing than the slightly harder film image. It was only whilst using
> binoculars (huge image size remember), that a definitive difference could
> be
> seen at the high contrast edges, and even this wasn't unpleasant.
> BTW the large numbers of press photographers who came to record the
> experiment were all using digital.
> As far as I was concerned it showed me what digital was capable of and
> nullified my arguments against. I now have two digital cameras and plan on
> getting a Canon 20D before the summer.

And good luck with your own 20'x80' prints! :-)
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 10:19:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Es6dnWIHTbeq4Z7fRVn-2Q@rogers.com>, "Darrell" <dev/null>
says...

> That is the highest number I have ever seen. I would place 35mm film in the
> real World at between 6 to 16 megapixels. That would be film like Fuji Astia
> at the high end, and consumer grade colour negative film at the low end.
> There is NO LENS made that will resolve 60 megapixels. 60 mp work out to a
> area of 20,000x30,000

That would be a 600 MP camera...
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 10:19:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon <alfred_molonREMOVE@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <Es6dnWIHTbeq4Z7fRVn-2Q@rogers.com>, "Darrell" <dev/null>
> says...
>
> > That is the highest number I have ever seen. I would place 35mm film in
> > the real World at between 6 to 16 megapixels. That would be film like
> > Fuji Astia at the high end, and consumer grade colour negative film at
> > the low end. There is NO LENS made that will resolve 60 megapixels. 60
> > mp work out to a area of 20,000x30,000
>
> That would be a 600 MP camera...

How about a 1 gigapixel camera? :-)

<http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm&gt;

Or maybe 2.5 gigapixels?

<http://www.tpd.tno.nl/smartsite966.html&gt;
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 3:50:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

(heading a bit offtopic.. sorry!)

>Digital is also far more expensive than a comparable film camera....

That's nowhere near as clear as you make it sound.

Fim camera costs overa year include all film costs and processing.

Digital camera costs over a year include power costs for
recharging/battery replacement maybe every 18 months, and cost of
enough digital storage.

Then there is printing.. (O;

The volume of images, and the nature of your workflow is extremely
relevant to working out how much the two mediums cost. In my case, I
shoot probably 5x as much now that I use digital. The camera was about
4x as expensive as an equivalent film camera, but I have already, in
less than 8 months, spent less than I would, had I still been shooting
film. And then there are all the intangible benefits - like in-camera
white balance and histograms, immediate review, adjustable ISO, etc....
And as I already had a very capable computer and printer for other
work, it was a no-brain decision.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 12:34:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Subject: Re: Digital is best but...
>From: "Dave E" david.az@ntlworld.com
>Date: Fri, Feb 4, 2005 11:08 AM
>Message-id: <4eMMd.457$8G5.49@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>
>
>"Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote in message
>news:K7KMd.147436$K7.142779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12?
>Does
>> this mean in time digital will be as good when it gets to those figures
>or
>> is it already as good in quality ?
>> Digital photography in my opinion is the best thing to come from all this
>> computer technology these days because it is real and practical.
>>
>>
>>
>Hi All,
>This may not be what the poster asked for but I think it's a relevant "real
>world" example.
>I live in the UK and about 5-6 months ago a TV programme called "The Gadget
>Show" took studio photos of the female presenter with both film and digital
>cameras. High end cameras, pro photographer, same pose and lighting.
>Similiar setup to a magazine cover shoot.
>After processing etc they had both photographs printed professionally on
>segments that made up two, approx. 20feet x 80 feet posters. They then hung
>both "posters" on a tall building side by side. The result was that you
>couldn't tell which was which! The photographers opinion was that the
>digital prints very slightly softer look was, for this subject, more
>appealing than the slightly harder film image. It was only whilst using
>binoculars (huge image size remember), that a definitive difference could
>be
>seen at the high contrast edges, and even this wasn't unpleasant.
>BTW the large numbers of press photographers who came to record the
>experiment were all using digital.
>As far as I was concerned it showed me what digital was capable of and
>nullified my arguments against. I now have two digital cameras and plan
>on
>getting a Canon 20D before the summer.
>Dave.

Intentionally or unintentionally the test you describe seems to me like it was
"gilding the lilly" in favor of digital. Here's why...

See my other post... but to capsulize. If you are standing so far away from an
image the size of a building that you need binoculars to see its finer
qualities at that size and from that distance, quality distinctions are your
least important factor. "Look" is an entirely different thing - I like if not
prefer the look of high ISO digital (compared to its same speed film
equivalent). Also, the shoot seems to be under controlled conditions in which
digital shines (photography of a model's skin under large source lighting with
a low contrast range).

Had the shots been made out of doors without reflectors or umbrellas or soft
boxes or gobos to modify the small source lighting (small is relative here -
from the sun (93 million miles away) or even from a shoe mount flash (just a
plain small couple of inches wide light source from any distance needed to
light a human subject effectively, unless the human were shrunk down to the
size of a matchbox or an ant and then it would become a large source, LOL ;-)))
into a larger source with more subtle transitions from specular hilght to
hilight to shadow, the results, pardon the pun, would most likely be visible "a
mile away" ;-) and the more clinically harsh antiseptic "look" (for my tastes)
of digital with blown out highlights on the skin (any grain issues aside here)
would be far less pleasing than the more subtle hue and tonal hilight
transitions on film. Also, a white pixel is a white pixel with digital, with
film (black and white or color neg) I have been able to burn/print down many
nuclear highlights that would have been plain unrecoverable with any digital
camera I know of (though I've seen some results from the new Fuji S3? that is
able to retain _some_ lost highlight rendition with its extra tonal range from
its extra/different sensitivity pixels it uses - I would like to see this kind
of tonal expansion technology not just on Foveon chips but on other types of
digi sensors in the future, as well as a more longer lasting unobsolescent
digital (yes, I know this is in effect an oxymoron) media/um/formats).

Each medium has different virtues/vices...

Pick and choose what you will for your needs.

Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":

http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm

Remove "nospam" to reply

***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 2:51:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"gsum" <gsum@bst.com> wrote in message
news:42038ac0$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net...
> But a single grain is not equal to a pixel. A grain reacts to the
incidence
> of light i.e. it is activated if exposed to light, otherwise is not
> activated.
> A grain is therefore equal to a single bit, not a pixel. To get a more
> realistic comparison, divide the number of grains by the number of bits
> that make up a typical pixel i.e. 60 million/14 = about 4.3 mpixels.
> Obviously this is very simplistic as many other factors such as
> noise are relevant, but is is a good rule of thumb.
>
> I find that this ties in well with my findings for the 6mpixel D100 -
> it give results that are much better than for 35mm film of comparible
> sensitivity such as Provia 100.

People here seem to agree that film rests somewhere between 6 & 16MP. What
I can't wrap my head around is why a 6MP image will not give me an
enlargement past 11x17. After that, grain and aliasing becomes too much of
a problem. Yet a roll of 100ASA film bought at Wal Mart can produce a good
image 20x30 and beyond. 35mm film is used in cinemas. That projected image
is a heck of a lot larger without loss of quality.

That's what frustrates me about digital imaging. I can't afford to buy a
16MP camera like Canon's Mark II. But any cheap 35mm SLR can produce an
image I can enlarge to poster size! I like all the advantages of digital.
But the enlargement limitation bothers me.

Some photographers have told me they can achieve large prints from 6MP
cameras and lower by manipulating the image resolution in their computers.
Does anyone know more?

Cheers!
Ken

kenregular@3web.net
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 7:29:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4204e48e_2@news.cybersurf.net>, KMR <tvtv@lmnoptv.com> wrote:
>
>35mm film is used in cinemas. That projected image
>is a heck of a lot larger without loss of quality.

The eye will tolerate very low resolution images as long as they're moving.
Look at a still from a TV programme, for example - it looks really ropey,
but when watching the moving picture, it looks alright.
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 7:48:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 5 Feb 2005 00:50:18 -0800, chrlz@go.com wrote:

> In my case, I
>shoot probably 5x as much now that I use digital. The camera was about
>4x as expensive as an equivalent film camera, but I have already, in
>less than 8 months, spent less than I would, had I still been shooting
>film.

Ditto.

> And then there are all the intangible benefits - like in-camera
>white balance and histograms, immediate review, adjustable ISO, etc....

Ditto on all those features, I use them daily. Without those features
it would have been almost impossible to adjust my settings to catch a
shot like this one:

<http://s89108059.onlinehome.us/IMG_9552-clean.jpg&gt;

Also memory comes in bigger units than film rolls. I can shoot
hundreds of images per memory card, with film I had to change film
rolls every 24 to 36 exposures. When you are shooting action events
the time it takes to change film or memory can cause you to miss
shots, and the action of changing film introduces dirt/dust into the
camera.

jc
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 11:42:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thursday 03 February 2005 06:35, "Darrell" <dev/null> wrote:

>
> "Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote in message
> news:LOKMd.147476$K7.55347@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> I bought a book by Philip Andrews named 'The Digital Photography
>> Manual'
> in
>> it he says an average ISO film is estimated to have sixty million
>> light sensitive grains within one 35mm frame. Some specialist studios
>> are
> capable
>> of 16 million pixels for digital.
>>
> Grain are not pixels. Most experts will rely on resolving power ,
> which for a film such as Fuji Astia is around 150 lpmm (24x36) will
> yield 19,440,000 19.4 million lines but these lines are obscured by
> film grain and the fact that film is a multi-layered matrix so I would
> estimate maybe 15% loss to be generous, ergo 16 megapixels. A Canon
> 1DS mk.II will easily match that, and beat most other films.

The main limiting factor for resolution is the lens not the film. Film,
in general, has always be able to resolve more than the lens can
produce.

Generally, "excellent" 35mm lenses will resolve 50 to 55 lp/mm.
Exceptional ones will do 75 or so. A few Leica lenses fall into this
category. That's why Leica produced images have the reputation of
"jumping off the paper."

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 2:18:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <SmCNd.11454$6u.2783@fed1read02>,
Stefan Patric <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:

>The main limiting factor for resolution is the lens not the film. Film,
>in general, has always be able to resolve more than the lens can
>produce.

I don't think that a Canon 300mm f2.8L IS lens is the limiting factor
with many, if any films. With a 2x Canon Converter, it's MTF chart has
all of the lines at .95 and above, with the lower contrast lines still
hugging the 1.0 line.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 10:03:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Monday 07 February 2005 15:18, JPS@no.komm wrote:

> In message <SmCNd.11454$6u.2783@fed1read02>,
> Stefan Patric <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:
>
>>The main limiting factor for resolution is the lens not the film.
>>Film, in general, has always be able to resolve more than the lens can
>>produce.
>
> I don't think that a Canon 300mm f2.8L IS lens is the limiting factor
> with many, if any films. With a 2x Canon Converter, it's MTF chart
> has all of the lines at .95 and above, with the lower contrast lines
> still hugging the 1.0 line.

At what resolution? 10 lp/mm? 20? 40? Most any lens' MTF will look
good at 10 lp/mm. Go to www.kodak.com and find the MTF curves for some
of their films. Even lowly, old, grainy Tri-X has no trouble with up
to 50 lp/mm. Check out the T-Grain films, too. Even better.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 12:18:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:

> On Monday 07 February 2005 15:18, JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>
>>In message <SmCNd.11454$6u.2783@fed1read02>,
>>Stefan Patric <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The main limiting factor for resolution is the lens not the film.
>>>Film, in general, has always be able to resolve more than the lens can
>>>produce.
>>
>>I don't think that a Canon 300mm f2.8L IS lens is the limiting factor
>>with many, if any films. With a 2x Canon Converter, it's MTF chart
>>has all of the lines at .95 and above, with the lower contrast lines
>>still hugging the 1.0 line.
>
>
> At what resolution? 10 lp/mm? 20? 40? Most any lens' MTF will look
> good at 10 lp/mm. Go to www.kodak.com and find the MTF curves for some
> of their films. Even lowly, old, grainy Tri-X has no trouble with up
> to 50 lp/mm. Check out the T-Grain films, too. Even better.
>
Also depends on what you want from the lens. Single focal length (not
zoom) of medium or narrow FOV, moderate f/# say f/5.6 to 8, restricted
color bandwidth, no restriction on cost of lens- I can design a pretty
awesome lens in terms of resolution.

Look at microfilm technology, both in terms of the cameras, and the
REALLY high res film. Of course, really weird characteristic (transfer)
curve, monochrome, but hey, LOTs of resolution if that is what you are
interested in.

All photographic lens design is FULL of compromises.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 1:27:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <4eMMd.457$8G5.49@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net>,
"Dave E" <david.az@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "Tonny" <Tonny@yahoo.com.> wrote in message
> news:K7KMd.147436$K7.142779@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > Film shoots in 60mpixels equivalent to the best digital at only 10-12?
> Does
> > this mean in time digital will be as good when it gets to those figures or
> > is it already as good in quality ?
> > Digital photography in my opinion is the best thing to come from all this
> > computer technology these days because it is real and practical.
> >
> >
> >
> Hi All,
> This may not be what the poster asked for but I think it's a relevant "real
> world" example.
> I live in the UK and about 5-6 months ago a TV programme called "The Gadget
> Show" took studio photos of the female presenter with both film and digital
> cameras. High end cameras, pro photographer, same pose and lighting.
> Similiar setup to a magazine cover shoot.
> After processing etc they had both photographs printed professionally on
> segments that made up two, approx. 20feet x 80 feet posters. They then hung
> both "posters" on a tall building side by side. The result was that you
> couldn't tell which was which! The photographers opinion was that the
> digital prints very slightly softer look was, for this subject, more
> appealing than the slightly harder film image. It was only whilst using
> binoculars (huge image size remember), that a definitive difference could be
> seen at the high contrast edges, and even this wasn't unpleasant.
> BTW the large numbers of press photographers who came to record the
> experiment were all using digital.
> As far as I was concerned it showed me what digital was capable of and
> nullified my arguments against. I now have two digital cameras and plan on
> getting a Canon 20D before the summer.

True. The great thing about digital is there's no intermediate step
between camera and print. Film enlargements are only as good as the
enlarger itself as well as the enlarging lens. Add to that the problem
with film flatness or 'popping' as well as tramlines, dust and
incomplete fixing, digital has these problems sorted.
I do notice green & purple 'fringing' at high magnification of digitals
but this tends to be about 5 pixels wide on a 6.3 mpxl picture.
!