26 Megapixel 40D Compared to 35mm Film

Let me try to help. For the ones confused on the 26 megapixel subject:

 

A full frame 35mm camera like the 1DsIII has a sensor roughly 2.6 times larger (area wise) than the 40D's APS-C sensor.

 

In this test, the 40D was used with the same vantage point and lens as the 35mm camera. Thus used as if it were 26 megapixels. The area in pink was onviously not captured by the 40D.

 

Detail wise then, the 35mm scan captured more than 2.6 times the detail of the 40D. If you remove the scanner of the equation (you can use a better one in the future), 35mm film actually captured 4 times the detail of the 40D.

 

Also remember the grain in this example is exaggerated with sharpening for people to compare detail using a variety of monitors. In reality, grain is not observable even at a 100% magnification. Whether you like the grain or not is a preference and you can remove it with software easily if you want to.

 

Also realize than the resolution you are looking at is the scanner's not the film. This film outresolves my scanner.

I understand the 26mp equasion. The camera is repositioned to cover the same frame as that represented by the

larger film full-frame sensor. Its mps are then concentrated into a smaller area of what would be a crop out of the full

frame image. That is well known. If you shoot a full frame DSLR from the same position as an aps model, then crop

the FF image to match that of the aps image, you would lose pixels. Therefore, the pixel density of that central part

of the FF image would be more pixel rich with the 40D, similar to having a 26mp FF camera.

 

But this TMX film may be grainier than other films, and not a good test. Look at the medium contrast image and see

how many marks along the edge of the measuring tape you can count compared to the 40D image. There is your

actual, visual resolving power.

Tmax 100 in xtol is probably about as fine grained as you can get these days Mauro bumped the contrast to make the charts easier to read or something. I did some Tmax 100 in D76 some years ago and the results were really quite something if you like fine grained sharp images but I did not care for the waxy skin tones. You should make some 50-60 inch wide prints from both samples you don't need to make whole prints but just some sample crops from important areas. You could do the Tmax prints on an enlarger to take the scanner out of the equation and injet the d40 images. At least that way you would be able to say which on produces the more detailed prints. I does not matter if the film has more detail under a microscope if you can't get that detail onto paper. Personaly I shoot some B&W film because I like it not for anyother reason.

Mauro, this is one the most awesome study of film posted. You constantly work to give us all more insight and understanding. I thank you for that.

 

People don't stop to value this information. They respond too fast before they can assimilate.

 

It is crazy to think the Luminous Landscape once argued that a 3MP digicam match Provia 100F. Oh well..... they have to sell.

 

Can't wait until you post the Ektar and Velvia scans.

 

Thank you.

I still not getting how you think by repositioning the camera to make up for a full frame shot will make it same in comparsion to a 26MP DSLR. I unterstand what you mean about cropping a full frame shot will take away pixels, leaving you with a smaller image in terms of pixel size. But a full frame 26MP DSLR will always out resolve a 10MP DSLR if all else in the equation is equal. I promise you if you take a shot with a 26MP DSLR and then take same identical shot with a 10MP DSLR. Then crop the full frame DSLR so you only have a 10MP image, then view both at 100%. The 26MP shot will out resolve the 10MP shot in detail. So your comparsion doesn't hold up. Also when you have thousands of proffesionals out there saying that the current line up of 10MP+ DSLR's will out perform 35mm in terms of image quality, I tend to belive them. Last thing is when I look at your image comparsions, what are you seeing that I'm not. Because the DSLR shot looks awesome in comparsion to your scan, in detail and everything else. But if in your eyes the scanned film looks better and more detailed, than more power to you. I must say I was not impressed at all with the scanned film you showed.

He is not repositioning the 40d it is shot from the same place with the same lens. My uploaded pic may explain it better<div></div>

Even assuming the Tmax offers greater resolution, when scanned, it also offers a grain pattern that looks like sand sprayed all over the image.

 

Perhaps a direct print would be far better than a scan, and far better than the 40D, but in this thread, and in all variations of the images, the 40D looks clean and the Tmax looks dingy in comparison. Just visually, on the images presented, I doubt anyone would think Tmax was superior.

Some observations, and I'm sorry I don't mean to sound arrogrant but:

 

1. The Coolscan film scanners are medicocre when compared to an Imacon or other high end scanners. I did

numerous scans with several models of scanners before settling on an Imacon. So far as consumer scanners are

concerned, the Coolscan used in this test won't extract the maximum capability of the film.

 

2. I own a refrigerator full of Velvia in 120, 220 and 4x5 along with a Pentax 645, a Horseman 4x5, a Horseman 6x9,

a Fuji 617 and a Wisner Technical Field camera. I shoot digital with a 40D and a Rebel XSi. I do my film scans with

an Imacon and my film is processed by A&I in Los Angeles. So, I've got a good bit of experience with a number of

formats and technologies.

 

3. I seldom shoot film any longer. I shoot mulitple frames digitally, HDR process and then stitch. I have stitched

images in gallery my that sell along with images captured on 4x5 from several years ago and the multiframe stitches

exhibit just as much, if not more , detail than film equivalents. To my eyes on the examples posted, the 40D single

frame blows away the Coolscan scanned film frame.

 

Giving the poster the benefit of a doubt, why even bother to post JPGs and apologize for what we're not able to see.

If you want us to make a valid comparison, crop a detail section of both frames, post them as TIFF files rather than

JPGs.

 

And for what it's worth. The Rebel XSi is superior to the 40D and the new 50D in terms of noise and resolution. It will

be the backup for my 5D mkII on order. Anyone need any Velvia cheap?

<a href="148/ektar/scanback/SpeedGraphicF11AEsmall.jpg?t=1226799366"><U> Here </U> </A> is what a 5 dollar war surplus C&H sales of Pasadena WW2 Aero Ektar 178mm F2.5 @F11 looks like full frame 7x10cm with a 35 megapixel PHase One scan back on a Speed Graphic; with no IR filter in place.<BR><BR><a href="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/SpeedGraphicF11AEmed.jpg?t=1226799561"> zoomed in abit </a><BR><BR><a href="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/scanback/SpeedGraphicF11AEdetail.jpg?t=1226799624">zoomed in abit more; the cell tower is 5km away</a>

There are I think advantages and disadvantages to the different formats I think. The arguement seems a little pointless to me, I'd use either depending on what I want to achieve.

 

Detail or not, the 40D images are more usable if I needed to crop that much and use aggressive sharpening. I don't take pictures for scientific experiments, I want them to look nice.

 

Pictures from the 40D are nice.

Obviously the digital looks a lot cleaner than the 35mm film here. I still shoot some B&W film and often use Plus-X

which is grainer than TMX. But!!!! when I use the enlarger and make real B&W prints the grain is not visable at all.

The grain shown on the examples above are the result of scanning B&W film which it was never made to do.

"Giving the poster the benefit of a doubt, why even bother to post JPGs and apologize for what we're not able to see."

 

Or denying what we plainly ARE able to see. I shot K25 then Velvia almost exclusively. As much as I loved them, I can't imagine why I'd want to go back to them, at least in 35mm. Add to this that the only lab near me still processing Velvia just went out of business...

 

Even if a given film is miles above a DSLR, not many of us can practically use film with nearly the same convenience and ability to achieve fine quality as digital. I too own a Coolscan. It's great, but no match for a D200 at ISO 100.

 

I've had Velvia scanned professionally and expensively via an Imacon into 70mb TIFFs. The results leave me wishing I'd owned a D200 instead...

I don't get posts like this.

 

If you want to shoot film, shoot film. If you want to convince me to shoot film, you've failed. My D200 and D700 take excellent photos. I can view the photos amost immediately. I can manipulate the photos on the computer at my leasure using many powerfull programs (I like DXO). I can print the photos on my HP photo printer and the quality of the prints is fantastic. The benefits of digital photography are numerous. The advent of digital photography brought me back to the art and rekindled my interest. Digital is great.

 

You want to shoot film. OK.

 

You think film is better. So what.

 

Doug Santo

Pasadena, CA

Can you recommend a microscope for viewing photos? I've never thought of doing this, so I don't have one, maybe I need one to truly appreciate photographs.

Even though it is not the intention of this post, to help remove the confusion for those that are wondering about the 26 megapixel equivalent; I reshot the picture with the 40D using the exact same composition I shot with film. This is more apples to apples.

 

This is the comparison side by side at 200%:

 

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6560295_hraSq#417849621_RBnJg-O-LB

 

(Tmx on the left and 40D on the right).

(The Hunt's traditional went with fettuccine at lunch so I had to use mushrooms).

Jeff, I'm not sure whether you are kidding or not. Just in case, the Carson 40X is the cheapest good quality alternative for the light table.

 

If you are willing to make prints instead of just looking at the light table, you don't need a microscope, I find the difference between 35mm film and the 40D to be significant on prints larger than 11x14.

It was a joke. I'm a photographer. What something looks like through a microscope doesn't matter to a photographer.

Doug, I don't think film is better, just different. I like both film and digital. For landscape I like film like TMX or Velvia better than a DSLR because of its ability to resolve finer detail.

 

In general I shoot 6x7 film for landscape but I will bring the 35mm when needed portability in the future.

No worries Jeff. All good.

Mauro, I believe your methodology is sound, and I am not about to laugh. We always knew somehow that there was more detail in the film than could be pulled out with any scanner. The problem, however, is that, unless one is going to print directly from the negative, there is no way that one is going to get around digitizing the negative and losing all that wonderful data.

 

We need to go back to wet labs to get the full force of the power of film.

 

That said, given the speed and other economics that come with digital, what is the likelihood of this happening?

 

--Lannie

Now I'm confused. If I am to believe the first set of images, the 40D simply blows TMX out of the water. No comparison. However, if I am to believe the last set, the TMX has significantly higher resolving power. With all of this 26 Megapixel, looking at it under the microscope, scanner quality, etc, I have no clue what to believe.

Nicholas, I'll explain:

 

In this article I shot a) a composition using TMX 35mm and b) just the center portion of the same composition using the 40d. That is why I said 26 megapixels, because I would have needed a sensor 2.6 times the size of the 40d to capture the same composition I shot with film. Hence you were comparing TMX vs 2.6 times the sensor of the 40D.

 

Since this added confusion with some people, I shot the exact same composition with the 40D as I shot with TMX.

 

Yes you are correct, even just a scan of 35mm TMX resolved 3 to 4 times the detail of the 40D. (this is twice the resolution linearly , both vertically and horizontally).

 

The purpose of the test was two-fold, 1) to compare the new Ektar against the films I use frequently (TMX and Velvia) and 2) to consider whether the 35mm film resolution advantage over a DSLR would make it a viable portable tool when I can't carry my RZ67 camera.

Nicholas, you are right, my wet printing days are over too. Scanning film and printing is more convenient.

I meant Lannie...

 

FYI, I posted a couple more of the river pictures you liked on my portfolio.