Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

mega pix equiv of common films question

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
March 15, 2005 6:01:55 PM

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

Is there list of what the effective megapixels of various types of
35mm film equate to assuming one has the optic's to do the film
justice?

I'd like to check out how my film slr's resolves vs my digicams and
need to be able to factor in things such as maybe my lens aren't that
great.

Thanks,

Wes




--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 9:52:13 PM

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

clutch@lycos.com wrote:
> Is there list of what the effective megapixels of various types of
> 35mm film equate to assuming one has the optic's to do the film
> justice?
>
> I'd like to check out how my film slr's resolves vs my digicams and
> need to be able to factor in things such as maybe my lens aren't that
> great.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wes


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

But megapixels isn't everything. Dynamic range and signal-to-noise
are important too. See:

The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images
and Comparison to Film:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.no...

Dynamic Range and Transfer Functions of Digital Images
and Comparison to Film:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2

And lots of other articles at:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail

Roger
March 16, 2005 12:30:01 AM

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

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote:

>http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....
>
>But megapixels isn't everything. Dynamic range and signal-to-noise
>are important too. See:

Thank you. You answered my inital question and two more that I
started wondering about after I posted my request. I'm definetly
bookmarking your web page!


Wes

--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:29:22 AM

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

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....
>
Roger,

I'm a little puzzled about the position of TMX on the
Megapixel equivalent chart. According to the manufacturers'
MTF data, TMX ought to outresolve Velvia.

TMX shows 100% mtf at 50 cycles/mm and about 60% at 100 cycles/mm

Velvia shows 100% MTF at about 25 cycles/mm and 50% MTF at nearly
50 cycles/mm. These are still quite impressive figures.

Oddly, Velvia has better claimed resolution for a 1.6:1 target.
Velvia is claimed to give 80 lp/mm, TMX is claimed to show only
63 lp/mm.

Your data would appear to show Velvia outresolving TMX to
a slightly larger degree than predicted by the 1.6:1 contrast
resolution (80^2/63^2=1.61...) and seemingly in conflict
with the MTF charts. Do you have any ideas on why this
might be the case?

Peter.
--
pirwin@ktb.net
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 7:29:23 AM

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

Peter Irwin wrote:

> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....
>>
>
> Roger,
>
> I'm a little puzzled about the position of TMX on the
> Megapixel equivalent chart. According to the manufacturers'
> MTF data, TMX ought to outresolve Velvia.
>
> TMX shows 100% mtf at 50 cycles/mm and about 60% at 100 cycles/mm
>
> Velvia shows 100% MTF at about 25 cycles/mm and 50% MTF at nearly
> 50 cycles/mm. These are still quite impressive figures.
>
> Oddly, Velvia has better claimed resolution for a 1.6:1 target.
> Velvia is claimed to give 80 lp/mm, TMX is claimed to show only
> 63 lp/mm.
>
> Your data would appear to show Velvia outresolving TMX to
> a slightly larger degree than predicted by the 1.6:1 contrast
> resolution (80^2/63^2=1.61...) and seemingly in conflict
> with the MTF charts. Do you have any ideas on why this
> might be the case?
>
> Peter.

Peter,
The more detailed page gives the equations used, see:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....

Indeed, I use the 1.6:1 contrast data because in my evaluations,
it was more appropriate to a lot of the information we view in
typical images. When I first tested TMX I was quite
surprised at its apparent less resolution than velvia, then
further investigation showed the 1.6:1 target data showed
exactly what I was seeing in image of real scenes.

Roger
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 2:16:39 PM

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

There are some other considerations as well, how much you can get out
of film depends on what you do with it, a drum scanner can pull more
out then a normal film scanner and a good film scanner can get more
then optical printing. Also digital pixels are not all equal, I have
two 8 MP digital cameras, a Sony F828 and a Canon 20D, even thou they
both have the same number of pixels the 20D captures much more detail
in addition to being much lower noise.

With my rather inexpensive film scanner, a DiMAGE Scann Dual III, I
have a hard time getting even close to what my Sony F828 can produce.
With my scanner I figure at best I could match maybe a PS digital
camera with 4 to5 MP.

If I remember right Roger figures more scanner resolve a fair bit lower
then what their pixels per inch would limit them to, from what I have
seen I believe this to be true.

Scott
Anonymous
March 16, 2005 6:17:13 PM

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

Scott W wrote:

> There are some other considerations as well, how much you can get out
> of film depends on what you do with it, a drum scanner can pull more
> out then a normal film scanner and a good film scanner can get more
> then optical printing. Also digital pixels are not all equal, I have
> two 8 MP digital cameras, a Sony F828 and a Canon 20D, even thou they
> both have the same number of pixels the 20D captures much more detail
> in addition to being much lower noise.
>
> With my rather inexpensive film scanner, a DiMAGE Scann Dual III, I
> have a hard time getting even close to what my Sony F828 can produce.
> With my scanner I figure at best I could match maybe a PS digital
> camera with 4 to5 MP.


A good film scanner, and good photo techniques
and gear and film, will get you more detail from
a 35mm frame than a 20D. But that's a lot of "ifs"
and there's no disputing the inconvenience of film
& scanning relative to digital capture.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 12:25:53 AM

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

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Scott W wrote:
>
> > If I remember right Roger figures more scanner resolve a fair bit
lower
> > then what their pixels per inch would limit them to, from what I
have
> > seen I believe this to be true.
>
> This is my comparisons of drum scans versus consumer scanners.
> My experience with multiple manufacturers consumer scanners is that
> their claimed optical resolution is about 2/3 what you
> would see with the same dpi drum scan. For example, a
> 3000 dpi consumer scanner gets about the same spatial
> detail as a 2000 dpi drum scan in my experience.
>
> Roger

Thanks Roger,

I remembered something like that and your number would seem to match
what I am seeing with my scanner. When doing ad layouts in the past I
have had MF film drum scanned and was very impressed with the output,
but if I remember right we were paying $50 a scan. Not too big a deal
where you are going to pay a lot to have the ad run but more then I
would want to pay for my everyday photos. I have seen comparisons of
the same negative scanned both ways and the difference is pretty
impressive.

When you were doing your film vs. digital chart how were you scanner
the film? I would think this could have a pretty large impact of the
results.

Scott
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 12:43:42 AM

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

Scott W wrote:

> If I remember right Roger figures more scanner resolve a fair bit lower
> then what their pixels per inch would limit them to, from what I have
> seen I believe this to be true.

This is my comparisons of drum scans versus consumer scanners.
My experience with multiple manufacturers consumer scanners is that
their claimed optical resolution is about 2/3 what you
would see with the same dpi drum scan. For example, a
3000 dpi consumer scanner gets about the same spatial
detail as a 2000 dpi drum scan in my experience.

Roger
Anonymous
March 17, 2005 3:47:36 AM

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

On 16 Mar 2005 21:25:53 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:


>I remembered something like that and your number would seem to match
>what I am seeing with my scanner. When doing ad layouts in the past I
>have had MF film drum scanned and was very impressed with the output,
>but if I remember right we were paying $50 a scan. Not too big a deal
>where you are going to pay a lot to have the ad run but more then I
>would want to pay for my everyday photos. I have seen comparisons of
>the same negative scanned both ways and the difference is pretty
>impressive.


See lots of drum scan vs. ccd-scan comparisons here:

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

The newest collection is near the bottom of
the page in the table labeled "One Perfect Chrome..."

IMO, the differences (compared to the very
best CCD film scanners) are minimal. Drum
scanners are dinosaurs. You can pick one
up on eBay for less than the cost of a
used LS-8000, but getting it fixed or
serviced will set you back big-time.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 10:40:36 PM

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

Scott W wrote:

> Thanks Roger,
>
> I remembered something like that and your number would seem to match
> what I am seeing with my scanner. When doing ad layouts in the past I
> have had MF film drum scanned and was very impressed with the output,
> but if I remember right we were paying $50 a scan. Not too big a deal
> where you are going to pay a lot to have the ad run but more then I
> would want to pay for my everyday photos. I have seen comparisons of
> the same negative scanned both ways and the difference is pretty
> impressive.
>
> When you were doing your film vs. digital chart how were you scanner
> the film? I would think this could have a pretty large impact of the
> results.

Scott,
I was using a drum scanner, oil mounted film only. As I moved into
higher speed films that have lower resolution, I used a polaroid
sprintscan 4000 (4000 dpi). I also did the sprintscan on the fine grained
films so I knew the trade space of the scanners. I also tried
as many consumer scanners as I could buy or use from friends.

The 6000+ dpi scans were costing me about $100 each.

Roger
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 10:44:28 PM

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

rafe bustin wrote:

> See lots of drum scan vs. ccd-scan comparisons here:
>
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
>
> The newest collection is near the bottom of
> the page in the table labeled "One Perfect Chrome..."
>
> IMO, the differences (compared to the very
> best CCD film scanners) are minimal. Drum
> scanners are dinosaurs. You can pick one
> up on eBay for less than the cost of a
> used LS-8000, but getting it fixed or
> serviced will set you back big-time.

Rafe,
Yes, I agree. Consumer scanners are closing the gap with
drum scanners. But that is progress. After all, if you
have a ~2 GHz pentium PC, it's compute power is much more
than that of a Cray XMP supercomputer of about 15 years ago!

I can't wait to see the new epson 4990 scanner reviews. It
looks like it will be great for 4x5 and 8x10 film.

Roger
Anonymous
March 18, 2005 11:51:06 PM

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

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

> Scott,
> I was using a drum scanner, oil mounted film only. As I moved into
> higher speed films that have lower resolution, I used a polaroid
> sprintscan 4000 (4000 dpi). I also did the sprintscan on the fine
grained
> films so I knew the trade space of the scanners. I also tried
> as many consumer scanners as I could buy or use from friends.
>
> The 6000+ dpi scans were costing me about $100 each.
>
> Roger
I remember one of the many film vs. digital comparisons that was done
showed a noticeable improvement when they when to a drum scan, I can't
find the site now. At a $100/scan it would seem to be a better idea to
get a larger format camera.

So in a way there are two questions, what is the equivalent resolution
of film when you do everything right using the best film good lenses
and a top of the line scanner? Then this is what is the equivalent
resolution as a normal person would shoot and scan.

Scott
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 1:13:31 AM

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

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 19:44:28 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>rafe bustin wrote:
>
>> See lots of drum scan vs. ccd-scan comparisons here:
>>
>> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
>>
>> The newest collection is near the bottom of
>> the page in the table labeled "One Perfect Chrome..."
>>
>> IMO, the differences (compared to the very
>> best CCD film scanners) are minimal. Drum
>> scanners are dinosaurs. You can pick one
>> up on eBay for less than the cost of a
>> used LS-8000, but getting it fixed or
>> serviced will set you back big-time.
>
>Rafe,
>Yes, I agree. Consumer scanners are closing the gap with
>drum scanners. But that is progress. After all, if you
>have a ~2 GHz pentium PC, it's compute power is much more
>than that of a Cray XMP supercomputer of about 15 years ago!
>
>I can't wait to see the new epson 4990 scanner reviews. It
>looks like it will be great for 4x5 and 8x10 film.


There are several reviews to be found
by googling.

Those I've seen so far indicate no
noticeable improvement over the 4870.

I wish it weren't so.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 2:16:16 AM

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

rafe bustin wrote:

> Lots and lots of smart people have argued this
> matter and used various means to come up with
> numbers. One of the most oft-quoted is Norman
> Koren, at this page:
>
> <http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html&gt;
>
> Roger Clark has presented his own camparisons,
> and by now you may have seen my "snippets" of
> film scans and DSLR captures.
>
> If there's more detail than this that can be
> extracted from film, I have yet to see it.
>
> I scan fine-grain ISO 100 color negative 35 mm
> film at 4000 dpi on a high-end CCD scanner.
> From that I get 20 million pixels.
>
> Subjectively, the quality and detail of the image
> from my scan is roughly comparable to 8 million
> pixels from a Canon 20D, and observably better
> than the 6 million pixels from my Canon 10D.
>
> The film scan will have slightly more detail, but
> substantially more noise than the 20D capture
> (particularly because I'm scanning negatives.)
>
> In the very best case, a drum scanner would tilt
> the comparison slightly back in favor of film, partly
> from the extra detail, and partly from the reduced
> noise.
>
> There's sooo much subjectivity in this comparison!
>
> Some folks abhor any hint of grain or noise, and
> will probably favor the digicam captures for that
> reason alone. Others see this same quality of
> digicams as yielding a fake or plastic-looking image.
>
> Personally, I accept grain as inherent to photography,
> and would still prefer to start with a film scan when
> making very large prints. To some extent, noise and
> grain can be minimized by clever programs like
> NeatImage and NoiseNinja.
>
> The best of all worlds is MF or LF film scanned on a
> drum. That will leave just about any digicam in the
> dust. Or at least any digicam I can afford.
>
>
> rafe b.
> scan snippets:
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
Your line "There's sooo much subjectivity in this comparison!" is very
true.

The other line that is very true is "Or at least any digicam I can
afford." I have seen the 1Ds Mark II compared to a 4 x 5 camera and it
did surprising well at holding its own, and there are now some MF
digital cameras that go beyond this. Right now I can afford one, well
ok I can afford it but I don't want to pay $8000 for something that
in two years I will be able to have for $4000.

>From what I have seen from prints of friends and family most casual
photographers shooting 35mm have a hard time even matching a 5MP
digital camera (and knock this down a fair bit if they are shooting 800
film). Once the mini labs get their hands on the printing process you
can really take a hit in quality.

I have put out the challenge to my friends to try and better my F828 in
an 8 x 10 print, the one person who took me up on this came very close
but he had to admit that the print from the F828 was a bit sharper
looking. I am not saying that there are not people how have the skill
and equipment to beat the F828 in a 8 x 10 print, using a 35mm camera,
but I think they are very much in the minority. And as for my 20D I
will challenge anybody shooting 35mm (color film) to even match its
quality at any print size, of course I want to be using one of my prime
lenses. But then this gets us right back to the beginning which is
that this is very subjective and people will view the prints very
differently

My final conclusion is that trying to relate pixel counts between film
and digital does not have a lot of value, although it is an interesting
exercise. It would be better if people forgot about trying to use 35mm
camera as some kind of standard and worry more about what camera they
need to meet their needs for the kind of photos and prints that they
make. I think in fact that most people are doing just that, it is us
technology junkies that want to try and quantify everything.

Scott
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 4:12:57 AM

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

On 18 Mar 2005 20:51:06 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:


>I remember one of the many film vs. digital comparisons that was done
>showed a noticeable improvement when they when to a drum scan, I can't
>find the site now. At a $100/scan it would seem to be a better idea to
>get a larger format camera.
>
>So in a way there are two questions, what is the equivalent resolution
>of film when you do everything right using the best film good lenses
>and a top of the line scanner? Then this is what is the equivalent
>resolution as a normal person would shoot and scan.


Lots and lots of smart people have argued this
matter and used various means to come up with
numbers. One of the most oft-quoted is Norman
Koren, at this page:

<http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html&gt;

Roger Clark has presented his own camparisons,
and by now you may have seen my "snippets" of
film scans and DSLR captures.

If there's more detail than this that can be
extracted from film, I have yet to see it.

I scan fine-grain ISO 100 color negative 35 mm
film at 4000 dpi on a high-end CCD scanner.
From that I get 20 million pixels.

Subjectively, the quality and detail of the image
from my scan is roughly comparable to 8 million
pixels from a Canon 20D, and observably better
than the 6 million pixels from my Canon 10D.

The film scan will have slightly more detail, but
substantially more noise than the 20D capture
(particularly because I'm scanning negatives.)

In the very best case, a drum scanner would tilt
the comparison slightly back in favor of film, partly
from the extra detail, and partly from the reduced
noise.

There's sooo much subjectivity in this comparison!

Some folks abhor any hint of grain or noise, and
will probably favor the digicam captures for that
reason alone. Others see this same quality of
digicams as yielding a fake or plastic-looking image.

Personally, I accept grain as inherent to photography,
and would still prefer to start with a film scan when
making very large prints. To some extent, noise and
grain can be minimized by clever programs like
NeatImage and NoiseNinja.

The best of all worlds is MF or LF film scanned on a
drum. That will leave just about any digicam in the
dust. Or at least any digicam I can afford.


rafe b.
scan snippets:
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 6:16:17 AM

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

On 18 Mar 2005 23:16:16 -0800, "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I have put out the challenge to my friends to try and better my F828 in
>an 8 x 10 print, the one person who took me up on this came very close
>but he had to admit that the print from the F828 was a bit sharper
>looking. I am not saying that there are not people how have the skill
>and equipment to beat the F828 in a 8 x 10 print, using a 35mm camera,
>but I think they are very much in the minority. And as for my 20D I
>will challenge anybody shooting 35mm (color film) to even match its
>quality at any print size, of course I want to be using one of my prime
>lenses. But then this gets us right back to the beginning which is
>that this is very subjective and people will view the prints very
>differently

At 8x10" print size I don't think there's much difference
to be seen between 35 mm and any decent digicam. Under
the right conditions, even my G2 will make a very fine
8x10" print with great tonality.

Over the last year I've sold a number of fairly large
(20x30" and 24x36") LightJet prints deriving from a
number of sources: scanned 35mm, scanned 645, and a
10D. To my eyes, the 10D was barely up to the job,
but the client was quite happy with the print, thus,
so am I. The prints from 35 mm were better (IMO)
particularly after a careful treatment with NeatImage.
Needless to say, the prints from scanned MF were
the best, in terms of detail and tonality.


>My final conclusion is that trying to relate pixel counts between film
>and digital does not have a lot of value, although it is an interesting
>exercise. It would be better if people forgot about trying to use 35mm
>camera as some kind of standard and worry more about what camera they
>need to meet their needs for the kind of photos and prints that they
>make. I think in fact that most people are doing just that, it is us
>technology junkies that want to try and quantify everything.


Well, I don't see you as disinterested in the topic,
seeing as how you've been pretty active in the thread
and asking some obviously leading questions.

Yeah, we're technojunkies. Guilty as charged. We should
be outside taking picures.

Of course, 35 mm is a pretty low standard, but it's only
been in the last year or two that affordable digital
capture could honestly be compared against that standard.

So now we've arrived, and already asking, "what next?"

And while I'm waiting for the Next Big Thing in digital
capture, I'll be scanning film from my MF and LF gear --
assuming there's film to be had and my scanners hold up.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 8:41:43 AM

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

I know that I've come in late in this thread, but I've got some of my
own observations to make.
I use Kodak 400Tmax B&W film and also a Minolta Dimage 7i.
Most of what I shoot is candid, indoors and out in roughly equal
proportion.
I prefer ambient light and mostly shoot handheld or braced against
something.
The film cameras I use are a Minolta XG-2, Leica II, Aires IIIL or
Zorki 4K.
The Tmax is developed at home (in a tank with Rodinal Special, acetic
acid stop and Agifix fixer) and scanned at my local photolab in 16
base, resulting in a 3360x2240 pixel image.
I didn't believe that I would say this, but when I compare the image
files from the scanned Tmax and ISO 400 shots with my Dimage, it is
the digicam that wins in the apparent resolution stakes.
The Dimage is 5mp and the scans are about 7.5mp.
The graininess of the film, especialy in out of focus parts of the
image, realy makes me think that my "fake" DSLR can produce better
looking B&W pictures than this particular film.
8x10 prints of Tmax 400 done with an enlarger in a darkroom compared
to 8x10 inkjet prints (Canon i250, not the greatest by a long shot)
from the Dimage, the digital prints look cleaner and with no noise.
Strangley, the B&W shots from the Dimage look similar (in smoothness
and graininess) to some of the images I've taken using 100Tmax 120
film in my MF SLR.

In my case, the Minolta Dimage 7i at ISO 400 beats Kodak 400Tmax film
for B&W.

Your milage may indeed vary, depending on what film compared to which
digicam.
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 10:55:55 AM

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

dj NME wrote:
> I know that I've come in late in this thread, but I've got some of my
> own observations to make.
> I use Kodak 400Tmax B&W film and also a Minolta Dimage 7i.
> Most of what I shoot is candid, indoors and out in roughly equal
> proportion.
> I prefer ambient light and mostly shoot handheld or braced against
> something.
> The film cameras I use are a Minolta XG-2, Leica II, Aires IIIL or
> Zorki 4K.
> The Tmax is developed at home (in a tank with Rodinal Special, acetic
> acid stop and Agifix fixer) and scanned at my local photolab in 16
> base, resulting in a 3360x2240 pixel image.
> I didn't believe that I would say this, but when I compare the image
> files from the scanned Tmax and ISO 400 shots with my Dimage, it is
> the digicam that wins in the apparent resolution stakes.
> The Dimage is 5mp and the scans are about 7.5mp.
> The graininess of the film, especialy in out of focus parts of the
> image, realy makes me think that my "fake" DSLR can produce better
> looking B&W pictures than this particular film.
> 8x10 prints of Tmax 400 done with an enlarger in a darkroom compared
> to 8x10 inkjet prints (Canon i250, not the greatest by a long shot)
> from the Dimage, the digital prints look cleaner and with no noise.
> Strangley, the B&W shots from the Dimage look similar (in smoothness
> and graininess) to some of the images I've taken using 100Tmax 120
> film in my MF SLR.
>
> In my case, the Minolta Dimage 7i at ISO 400 beats Kodak 400Tmax film
> for B&W.
>
> Your milage may indeed vary, depending on what film compared to which
> digicam.

In the film versus digital discussion, people often forget film
is variable in resolution and highly correlated with its speed.
See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital....

The above page shows that TMAX 400 has only about 4 megapixel
digital equivalent resolution, consistent with your results.

Most comparisons have converged to pretty much the same answer.
But you have to look at the specifics--there is no one answer.

Many compare 100 speed film, but often don't say that.
If ektachrome, you get 4 to 6 megapixels digital equivalent,
but provia is about 5 to 7 (I need to add provia to my plot above).
Most comparisons put an 8 megapixel DSLR doing slightly better
than scanned provia 100F. But then compare finer grained
films, like velvia and the megapixel count goes higher.
Again, there is not one answer.

Drum scan versus consumer scans: the field is narrowing. If you compared
above iso 100 films, there would be little difference.
At iso 100, the drum would probably just edge out high end consumer
scanners. For velvia or tech pan film, the drum would do a little
better, but perhaps only 20 or 30% above high quality consumer
scanners in my experience.

Note I've added some new stuff to the above page: Apparent
Image Quality (still experimental), but trying to quantify
the signal-to-noise ratio differences between film and
digital cameras.

Roger
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 3:29:46 PM

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

In article <1111207866.348689.120170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>So in a way there are two questions, what is the equivalent resolution
>of film when you do everything right using the best film good lenses
>and a top of the line scanner? Then this is what is the equivalent
>resolution as a normal person would shoot and scan.

Assuming both are using slow E6 film, my own finger-in-the-air rule of thumb
is up to 1 megapixel per square centimetre for my own work (medium and large
format, Epson 4870), assuming good exposure, a tripod and decent lenses, and
maybe up to 2 megapixels per square centimetre for the guy who has access to
the absolute best stuff.

For those not wanting to do the arithmetic, 1mp/cm2 is about 2500 dpi, and
2mp/cm2 is about 3500 dpi. This also puts 35mm E6 at about 8mp (consumer
equipment) or 16mp (expensive stuff, doing everything right).
March 20, 2005 4:00:01 AM

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

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1111207866.348689.120170
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
>> Scott,
>> I was using a drum scanner, oil mounted film only. As I moved into
>> higher speed films that have lower resolution, I used a polaroid
>> sprintscan 4000 (4000 dpi). I also did the sprintscan on the fine
> grained
>> films so I knew the trade space of the scanners. I also tried
>> as many consumer scanners as I could buy or use from friends.
>>
>> The 6000+ dpi scans were costing me about $100 each.
>>
>> Roger
> I remember one of the many film vs. digital comparisons that was done
> showed a noticeable improvement when they when to a drum scan, I can't
> find the site now. At a $100/scan it would seem to be a better idea to
> get a larger format camera.

At that price a Canon 1Ds MkII at $8000 would pay for itself VERY quickly!

I don't personally believe that any 35mm film camera would outdo the 1Ds
MkII in any way that matters to me.

For that matter I don't think that my 10D is far enough behind to
necessitate spend good money on another camera. I often shoot at ISO 400
and I think that a film camera would offer me little in quality
improvement. But even if 35mm film at ISO 400 could match the 1Ds MkII in
quality, I would still stick with my 10D. Film is too limiting, the cost
per picture is a disincentive to take more pics and experiment a little, I
have taken over 15000 pics with my 10D in less than 2 years, there is no
way that I could be that uninhibited with film!

With the likes of the Canon 350D I think that digital can provide all the
quality that 99% of us need at a reasonable price. Maybe it's time to stop
worrying about whether we have lost quality by dropping film and to realise
that we have enough quality for our needs. The quality is there, time to
take photos!



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 20-Jan-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"
!