Fuji GW690III = How many megapixels ?

<p>And 100% crops.</p><div></div>

<p>Now, if possible, would you post your side by side examples that made you arrive to different conclusions?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you Maurio. There is far too often a workflow issue. People are sloppy with workflow. I thought just by hooking a good scanner and printer was going to automatically get me good results, it's not going to happen. I went to one of the best people out there and paid for a lesson on good work flow and it made all the difference. She was able to show me on her monitor the differences between a good film scan and digital. When she started enlarging the images the film clearly was better.<br>

We can take an assortment of digital cameras, from a full frame down to a point and shoot. Someone is going to like the image from the point and shoot better. There are photographers that would always favor a Holga image over any digital image and that's easy for me to understand.<br>

I have a friend who likes digital prints because to her they look like lithographs where digital colors are screened. She isn't into the subtle transitions between colors that she sees from film.<br>

Look at images from the Epson RD1, 6.1 megapixels. It leaves me amazed. Almost always used with a fantastic lens.<br>

And if you want to get the digital crowd excited, including the scanned film crowd, have them gather around some large prints from film done in a darkroom. Find some well done Cibachromes from 35mm Velvia or Kodachrome, it's another world.<br>

It's not the image, it's what we do with the image afterwards. For some of us the first and last viewing will be on the LCD screen on the back of our camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mauro, sorry, I didn't spell your name correctly in my previous response.<br>

BG, John never asked to compare DSLR to a scanned negative, Velvia or otherwise. If you can find a good Cibachrome produced from Velvia and compare it to a really good image printed from a DSLR.<br>

Someone correct me if I am wrong but does the Fuji = megapixels or is John asking about the 6 x 9 film negative or positive compared to a full frame digital image or otherwise? Or is the question from John not qualified correctly? I think there has been enough written about the equivalent megapixels from various films, discounting a scan. Perhaps a question to be answered are the potential megapixels for a scanned negative or positive compared to the best that a DSLR can produce? It's not all about megapixels but everything else being equal, the lens etc. John has narrowed it down to megapixels and is equating megapixels to quality. Would then 6 megapixels be enough or 10 or 25 or more, given the full potential of film? There are a lot of other factors that go into a quality image, lens, etc... Given that those other things are satisfied, at what point do more megapixels not matter? Can we compare a 12 megapixel point and shoot to a 6.1 megapixel Epson RD1?<br>

Eric, I understand, it depends on the end game.</p>

 

<p>Pretty much the opposite of my results. This is an 8000dpi scan of a Kodachrome 64 slide taken on a Leica M7 with a 75mm APO summicron at f/5.6. From the same tripod, I took the same photo with the same lens at the same aperture on a Leica M9. The M9 has significantly more detail. I did not want to believe it, but I have done the test many times with many different cameras and situations by now. I shoot both film and digital side by side and have no bias for one or the other. They are both excellent and wonderful ways to take pictures. But, the real world resolving power per unit area is much higher now on digital, at least on the equipment I have been using. Please click the links to see the actual comparison sizes...photo.net compresses them down to smaller sizes.<br>

http://stuartrichardson.com/kodachrome-vs-m9.jpg<br /> <img src="http://stuartrichardson.com/kodachrome-vs-m9.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Here is another test, this time comparing a 10 megapixel camera to E100G scanned on an Imacon 646 at 6300 dpi: <br /> <img src="http://stuartrichardson.com/hvalfjordur-dmr.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /><br /> <img src="http://stuartrichardson.com/hvalfjordur-dmr-crop.jpg" alt="" /><br /> The inline images don't seem to be working too well, so I will just post the links: <br /> Digital 100%<br /> http://stuartrichardson.com/hvalfjordur-dmr-crop.jpg<br /> Film scan at same visual size (pixel dimensions are larger, but there is no more detail)</p>

<p><img src="http://stuartrichardson.com/hvalfjordur-snow-75apo-crop.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Or finally, there was the time I compared a 22mp digital medium format back to 6x7 Fuji Acros:<br /> http://stuartrichardson.com/fuji-acros-whole-image.jpg<br /> http://stuartrichardson.com/fuji-acros-100crop.jpg<br /> <img src="http://stuartrichardson.com/fuji-acros-100crop.jpg" alt="" /><br /> http://stuartrichardson.com/22mp-whole-image.jpg <br /> http://stuartrichardson.com/22mp-100crop.jpg<br /> <img src="http://stuartrichardson.com/22mp-100crop.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Again, I am not saying film is worse, and indeed, it looks better in several of these images. It also enlarges better than digital in certain cases due to the way that it is sharpness falls off (gradually, whereas digital falls off like a cliff). But, in terms of perceived detail and sharpness, assuming equal imaging area, digital won that battle awhile ago. So I will stand by my 25-30mp of non-AA filtered digital with a good lens will be roughly equivalent to a 6x9 image scanned on the best scanners.</p>

<p>I decided to do a quick statistical analysis of the estimates that were offered. Some people gave estimates of the pixel count a DSLR would need to have to equal the resolution of a 6x 9 film camera, which was what John Dowle wanted to know. There were also some estimates of the scanner resolution needed to do justice to a 6 x 9 film. I debated whether to included those (I can see how they could be relevant). But I decided to stick to the ones that more directly addressed the original question. A couple of the responses were stated as a range of MP values, or as a possible minimum. John Crowe gave a range of 80 to 120MP. I used the 120MP figure since he seemed to feel that it could take that much. And Ilkka suggested a minimum of 40MP or more. I used 40. With that in mind, the data points were:</p>

<p>Roy Butler: 40MP<br>

Rob F: 75MP<br>

Rodeo Joe: 3000 dpi (13.5MP, I believe)<br>

BG 13MP<br>

John Crowe: 120MP<br>

John Thurston: 96MP<br>

Dave Luttman: 15MP<br>

John Narsuitus: 155.7MP<br>

Ilkka: 40MP<br>

Some of these were arrived at mathematically, and others perhaps by subjective impressions of quality. As far as I am concerned, both approaches count. Although one person's estimate may or may not prove anything, I think the impressions of many have a way of zeroing in on the truth. So I felt that a statistical analysis of all these impressions and calculations might point to a result that is in the correct ballpark. So with that in mand, here goes:</p>

<p>n=9<br>

mean (average) =63.1MP<br>

median (midpoint) =84.4MP<br>

standard deviation=48.7MP</p>

<p>Two of the data points were "outliers," meaning that they were pretty far outside the range of the other data offered. These were John Crowe at 120MP, and John N. at 155.7MP. I'll do a second run, using John C.'s 80MP estimate, and leaving out the 155.7 data point. That may tighten things up a bit:</p>

<p>n=8<br>

mean=46.6MP<br>

median=54.1MP<br>

standard deviation=31MP</p>

<p>Leaving out the outliers doesn't make it more accurate: how do I know they weren't the right answer? It's just to see how the results might look that way.</p>

<p>These results don't "prove" anything (before someone asks). The standard deviation is large compared to the mean, in other words, the answers are very spread out (from 13MP to 155MP). So they don't strongly cluster in a central region. But if we could know the "right" answer, perhaps it would lie somewhere in a range from around 46MP to 63MP. I would really need more than the 8 or 9 data points to get a stable, reproducible result. 60 or 80 would be nice. Anyone want to get some more people in on this?</p>

<p>Stuart, a couple questions on your samples.</p>

<p>Kodachrome: what 8,000dpi scanner did you use? could you post a link to the scan (or the crop) at 8,000dpi without reducing its size?</p>

<p>E100G: could you post a link to the crop as it came from the scan without reducing its size?</p>

<p>Fuji Acros: what scanner did you use?</p>

<p>Rob, thank you for the stats on opinions. If you reduce the sample to those who have posted examples or have actual direct experience you should arrive to the only objective and valid answer:</p>

<p>1- 6x9 film outresolves every single MF scanner named across this entire thread.<br>

2- Because of 1, people are not discussing 6x7 or 6x9 film. They are just discussing their scanners.</p>

<p>Specific to the numbers:<br>

- My Coolscan gives me aprox 90 megapixels of true measured detail (lower than its 100 pm full RGB nominal capture - because of the scanner not the film).<br>

- A DSLR gives you aprox 70% of its nominal resolution in true detail (although the color is interpolated).</p>

<p>-----> 90 / 70 % = 128 MP required from a DSLR to match 6x7 film (and this is a 128MP medium format SLR due to lenses and no-AA requirements).</p>

<p> </p>

So John, after all these comments, what do you think?

<p>You can get 50 megapixel with this Fujifilm gsw690III.take a look to this picture.</p><div></div>

<p>Fujifilm gsw690III,50 megapixel camera.</p><div></div>

<p>Rob, I never said 15mp is the best that film could do with a good scan.....I said that was about as good as you get from scanning with a V700 Epson. A good scan of 6x9 would take in the area of 35 to 40mp to equal.</p>

<p>depends on the film, sensor, and lenses.<br>

if we ignore the lens-or imagine that the imaging item (film or sensor) is looking through essentially a perfect lens, then we have just the two left to compare.<br>

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm</p>

<p>instead of copy pasting and stealing their work, I suggest reading that.<br>

nearly every camera sensor works that way- foveon (i think that's who it is) sensors work more like film, in that they layer three colors in each sensor site.<br>

however, foveon (if it is them) does exaggerate their resolution a bit, but their sensor is closer to how film works.<br>

film? well, i'll choose my favorite film to compare-velvia 50 4x5.<br>

transparency film generally has a higher resolution than regular film, and lower speeds have more fine detail.<br>

well, if you look through all the data and resolution of that particular film, you do need a metric ton of megapixels to get equal quality (defined here as just how fine of a detail it can register, nothing more, nothing less)<br>

standard digital isn't at the level of 4x5 yet-probably is approaching medium format though-I haven't really stayed on top of the latest digital information.<br>

4x5 scan backs can likely be very close to film, if not equal to film in pure resolution, but cost such an extraordinary amount, and are very slow to use.</p>

<p>to answer your question (which i guess I wasn't really) it really depends on what film you are usng and what lens.<br>

but i would guesstimate that for a good transparency film and a good lens, perhaps an 80mp or greater back would be roughly equivalent? I think sinar makes one like that.</p>

<p>I did some pretty extensive testing a couple years back. I found my 7D (18 MP) pretty much matched 35mm Velvia 50, scanned on an Imacon, on high contrast detail, and was a bit better on low contrast detail. To match or exceed 6x7 Velvia 50 I found it takes a 3 frame stitch from the same 7D.</p>

<p>Of course Velvia 50 is considerably higher resolution than most films. Still, this is the same ball park as reported by others here.</p>

<p>In print I don't think it matters up through about 24".</p>

 

<p>Mauro -- the Kodachrome scan was made on a Hasselblad X5, the second photo was scanned on an Imacon 646, and the Acros one was also scanned on an X5. I have been using the Imacon and Hasselblad scanners for approximately 10 years without interruption. I also earn a living printing exhibitions for people, so I see all different film formats and digital cameras. I am not saying that makes me right by default, but it does mean that I have a lot of experience looking at all sorts of digital and film originals and seeing big prints from them. <br>

For example, I just printed 15 2 meter long panoramas from 6x17 for an exhibition at a Norwegian gallery. There is nothing I have seen out there from digital that can equal this in an instant capture. There is of course stitching, but that is another matter. <br>

In any case, I will try to find the files you mention, but currently my lab is under construction, so I have limited access to the computer with all the actual files in it, and it does not have the internet at the moment. I would ask that you take my word for it that there is no more detail to be had, just more pixels of the same softness, but I understand how you need to see for yourself. </p>

<p>Wow, thanks to everyone for your replies to my question.<br>

I'm new to MF photography and have a lot to learn and obviously a lot to learn about scanning MF negs which to me after reading all the replies several times over seems to be a very important part of MF photography when wanting to print big. I think that when I eventually get photographs that I want printing large I will be sending them to a Pro to be scanned properly after reading all the information in the replies.<br>

Again many thanks.<br>

John.</p>

John,<br><br>Learning about scanning is only an important part of MF photography when wanting to print big if you want to insert a redundant digital stage into the process, instead of printing your MF negatives directly.

<blockquote>

<p>just how many mega-pixels in a modern DSLR do you think would give the equivalent quality</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Quality is not determined by megapixels. Many other parameters affect the quality like: colors, WB, noise,...One important factor is the lens and how to get correct focus but the 35mm DSLRs use different lenses from the lens of your Fuji</p>

<p>Some of these film vs. Digital comparisons are the same ones from a few years ago. The DSLRs are old models and are not fair comparisons as the technology is constantly changing. So here is a link for a comparison of a Canon 5Dii against against film. Now in a year there should be a new version of the 5Dii which will mean this comparison will have to be done again. LOL</p>

<p>http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html</p>

 

<p>For reference here's a drum scan from a 645 frame at about 4500 dpi rez (9975 x 7504 pixels = approx 75 Mpix). This is from a Pentax 645, 55mm f2.8, Provia 100F. You should be able to double this for a 6x9 frame I would think. ~1/10 crop to follow...</p>

<p>For reference here's a drum scan from a 645 frame at about 4500 dpi rez (9975 x 7504 pixels = approx 75 Mpix). This is from a Pentax 645, 55mm f2.8, Provia 100F. You should be able to double this for a 6x9 frame I would think. ~1/10 crop to follow...</p><div></div>

<p>Crop from 645 Frame.</p><div></div>

<p>Thank you Stuart. I look forward to seeing the files if you can locate them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For reference here's a drum scan from a 645 frame at about 4500 dpi rez (9975 x 7504 pixels = approx 75 Mpix). This is from a Pentax 645, 55mm f2.8, Provia 100F. You should be able to double this for a 6x9 frame I would think. ~1/10 crop to follow...</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Crop from 645 Frame.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here is Donald's crop, resized to 50% to halve the amount of (potential) information per dimension, or quarter it in total; saved and closed; then reopened and resized to 200% to restore it to the original size (948 x 710 pixels - 1 pixel was lost in each dimension because the original had odd numbers).</p>

<p>There is no discernable difference in the detail. All the little stem hairs and leaf structures look the same - the only detail to come out poorer is the dust/hair artefact, which was not part of the image captured on film by the camera. This illustrates the difference between having lots of scanned pixels, and having lots of actual information on the film. It's merely unnecessary oversampling.</p>

<p>So his 75 Mpix image can be represented in 1/4 the scan size (approx 19 Mpix). Double that 645 area for 6x9, and you get 38 MPix. We are back at the 35-40 Mpix that we had estimated above!</p>

<p>(The full frame of Donald's photo is a lovely image, BTW, and a reminder that resolution is certainly far from being everything!)</p>

<div></div>

<p>I have a sunflower picture too just like that one.</p><div></div>