A Comparison Between DX, FX, 120, and 4x5

<p>Hi all. Mods, apologies if this is not in the right forum. It encompasses a lot of different kinds of gear, so I wasn't sure where to put it.</p>

<p>I've been shooting portraits primarily with a Hasselblad 500c/m using Ilford FP4+ film for several years, along with a little bit of 4x5. I use a digital camera as a sort of 'Polaroid preview', and that camera has been the Sony NEX-7 for about a year now. Recently a friend insisted that I borrow his D800E to try out, in hopes that I love the heck out of it and I stop shooting film. He's been on me to do that for a while. I hemmed and hawed about how comfortable I was borrowing a $3,000 camera for a while, and then he told me he just got a D600 as a backup, and I had no problems with that.</p>

<p>So here's our test: Both digital cameras were 24 megapixel RAW images, and both film scans have been downsampled to the same resolution <em>before</em> editing. The VR on the Nikon lens was turned off. All cameras and film stocks have been shot at 100 ISO. There has been no sharpening or noise reduction applied to any of these files, although it looks like the images all got a little sharper when I put them on Flickr. The first four links were all downsized <em>after</em> editing to 1200 pixels on the long end, and the second four links are 100% crops of the original 24 MP images. Lastly, even though these images were not taken consecutively, the output of the lights was not changed, and I marked the floor so she stood at the same place each time. She was not wearing shoes in any of these images, so neither her position nor her height changed between these photos.</p>

<p>And yes, I was too lazy to spot these negatives.</p>

<p>These images were not all edited in the exact same way. Instead, they are all edited in the way that I feel looks the best, and the way that I would edit each individual image if I were preparing it for a print. Even though these images were (more or less) all shot the same way, this <strong>isn't a scientific test</strong>, and should not be viewed as such. This is not a test of what these cameras/sensors/films can and cannot do; <strong>it is a test of how the will perform when used the way that <em>I</em> work in the studio</strong>, and a test to see how well they work <em>for me</em>. I'm posting this here because I haven't seen a full-on scientific test yet, and I figure some information is better than no information.</p>

<p>But if you regularly shoot pale people wearing black in the studio at f/16, then this is probably right up your alley.</p>

<p>The gear is:<br>

Sony NEX-7 with Schneider 50mm f/1.9 lens, shot at f/16.<br>

Nikon D600 with 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI, shot at F/11<br>

Hasselblad 500c/m with Zeiss 80mm f/2.8, shot at f/16<br>

Linhof Technika III with Schneider APO-Symmar 210mm f/5.6, shot at f/16</p>

<p>Sony, full image:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zack_zoll/8400936272/in/photostream<br>

Nikon, full image:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zack_zoll/8400936100/in/photostream<br>

Hassy, full image (sort of):<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zack_zoll/8400935912/in/photostream<br>

Linhof, full image:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zack_zoll/8399846881/in/photostream<br>

Sony, 100% crop:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zack_zoll/8399847191/in/photostream<br>

Nikon, 100% crop:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zack_zoll/8400934822/in/photostream<br>

Hassy, 100% crop:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zack_zoll/8400934432/in/photostream<br>

Linhof, 100% crop:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zack_zoll/8399845853/in/photostream</p>

<p>So what did we learn? Well the first thing is that my Nikon 70-200mm lens is not as bright as the German prime lenses. It wasn't a full stop darker, but it was easily a half stop darker. That probably shouldn't surprise anyone, since all lenses have some amount of variation, and those German lenses have legendary quality control. After a little more testing, this was confirmed to be the case.</p>

<p>We also see that the larger FX sensor does not suffer from diffraction-related softness until it is stopped down further than on a DX camera. When shot at f/5.6 there is almost no difference in sharpness between the NEX and D600; I didn't bother to post any of those images, since it would have been too much of a pain in the butt to focus my 4x5 at that aperture, and I never use that setting in-studio anyway. But at f/16, which is where I usually am, the larger sensor overcomes diffraction much better.</p>

<p>We can see that aside from the better resistance to diffraction, the FX sensor offers a little better tonal range than the DX sensor. My model was pretty pale, and that's a black top. Tonal differences in the highlights of her skin, and the shadows of her top, are clearer than in the Sony camera. Additionally, the D600 is much sharper than the 120 film, and a little sharper than the 4x5 film, when printed at a size that the 24MP sensor is capable of printing. The tonal range of the D600 is not quite as good as the Hassy, although it is fairly close. </p>

<p>Okay, now here's some information that you can't see from the photos on the screen. Going from numbers alone, the D600 will make a good print at about the same maximum size as the Hassy: 12" on the short side if you're super anal, and about twice that size if you're not. At those sizes, the image from the D600 will be sharper than most film stocks. You can buy 120 film that is as sharp or sharper, but those film stocks all have shorter tonal ranges, so you'll lose out there.</p>

<p>Compared to the 4x5 film, the D600 prints better small, and much worse large. The 4x5 film image may not be as clinically sharp as the D600 image, but the huge negative size means that there is very little loss in sharpness or increase in film grain as it is enlarged. At a 12" print size, they are pretty equal. I didn't print any of the images larger than that, but my experience tells me that if I were to make a 24" print, the 4x5 image would be better than the D600 image in every possible way, and the 120 image would be a little better in some ways, and a little worse in others.</p>

<p>Since I didn't use the D800E I'm only supposing based on what I've read and what the owner told me, but I strongly suspect that the results from that camera would be the same: a little less tonal range than film, a little more sharpness. The owner is a compulsive tester as well as a 4x5 user, so I'm sure that's accurate.</p>

<p>Conclusions? Once I finally shoot through all my 120 film (and there is a HUGE stockpile in the freezer), I'll be selling my Hasselblad kit and buying a full-frame NEX, assuming one exists by then. If not, I'll just buy what film I need, rather than saving it up. This particular FX sensor doesn't have quite the tonal range of 120 film, but it is very close, and simply being able to use my German lenses on it will partially close that gap. I suspect that when I make that transition I'll have a slight loss in tonal range, but much better sharpness, and I won't need to jerk around with developing and scanning nearly as much film. Not perfect, but still an improvement.</p>

<p>The 4x5 camera will stay. There is absolutely nothing that tells me that we'll see a digital camera that makes enormous prints of that quality for less than $30,000 any time soon.</p>

<p>Oh, and if you've made it this far and wondered how these guys compare for colour ... well, I pretty much never shoot colour 120 film, and I haven't gotten my colour 4x5 back yet. But since colour film has a shorter tonal range than carefully processed black and white film does, that means that the largest advantage that 120 film had over the D600 is pretty much gone if you're shooting colour. If you're a 120 black and white shooter, wondering if you should buy an FX camera, there are plenty of pros and cons to weigh. If you're a colour shooter wondering the same thing, then you should just buy the new camera already. If you shoot colour 120, slide or negative, then the only real advantage of film stock is that you have the physical film stock: that's it. If you like the look better that's great, and there are plenty of photos I've taken with colour 120 that wouldn't have been the same with something else, but it's still a purely subjective decision.</p>

<p>So that's my long post! Hope it's helpful!</p>

<p>One comment I will make is that the apertures are not optimized for the format, so diffraction will look worse for the smaller sensors. You really should adjust them to give you equivalent depth of field, then at least the level of diffraction is based on an image attribute you have normalized. You also weren't using lenses with the equivalent angles of view for each system. Between the two effects I think it's hard to draw any firm conclusions.</p>

<p>However after doing my own rough tests I do generally agree with your conclusions. I have a D800E and I'm not ready to give up my Hasselblad or my 4x5. I think each has it's own advantages, especially if you like to print in the darkroom like I do, or need to print really large. But resolution and sharpness wise I get more from the Nikon than the Hasselblad. </p>

<p>Have you tried comparing high end flatbed scans of optical enlargements made in the darkroom, as well as scans of the negatives? </p>

<p>Generally speaking I've found scanned b&w negative film fares badly in comparisons with digital. Scans of conventional darkroom optical enlargements made on a high end flatbed scanner may be more representative of the capabilities of film.</p>

<p>LG: You're right. Apertures were not optimal. I mentioned in the post that at the 'correct' apertures the differences in sensor size is much smaller, but that I didn't do the comparison that way because I was trying to see what the different cameras have to offer me personally based on how I work, and not what they are or are not scientifically capable of. The 70-200 was the only Nikon lens I brought with me that day, and honestly I wasn't thinking about focal length when I shot the images.</p>

<p>Lex: I have not compared scans from an Imacon or a drum or anything else - these were all done with my Epson V700 and stock software. My experience with the Imacon tells me that the Hassy neg will be sharper (since the film is held flatter), and there will be very little sharpness difference in the 4x5, if any. Both films will have slightly longer tonal ranges. I have never used a drum scanner.</p>

<p>Compared to darkroom prints ... well, I won't be doing that. I floated the idea of setting up a darkroom again, but since my average print size is 16x20, it's just too much space, and I'm going to end up wasting way too many chemicals. But when I had the darkroom, I found that the tonal range was much better than an inkjet print (provided I was using graded papers and selenium toner), but sharpness was about the same.</p>

<p>But that's with the printers that I've been using. I'm floating the idea of a printer with more black ink tanks too, as I've seen a much smaller difference in capabilities from prints I've made with some of the higher-end Epsons.</p>

<p>Try Sony with the Schneider at F8...</p>

<p>Ann- Have done.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zack_zoll/8291481036/in/photostream<br>

100% crop:<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zack_zoll/8291480974/in/photostream</p>

<p>But as I've said ... since I'm shooting my film cameras at f/16, my digital camera needs to be at f/16 as well in order to give me a proper exposure preview. I'm buying 400 ISO film instead of my usual 125 next time though, so hopefully that will let me open up the Sony lenses some more without a huge compromise in image quality from the 4x5.</p>

<p>I've tried putting a 2 stop ND filter on the Sony camera, but that hasn't been as helpful as one would think. Since you're seeing a processed image rather than a proper image, the camera has to jack up the ISO on the preview to make it visible, and that makes it too hard for me to focus. I've tried pointing a super bright video light directly at the subject as well, but since the LCD preview is automatic exposure, it adjusts to compensate for that light, and I end up with a much cleaner, but much darker LCD image.</p>

<p>So far, the best system I've been able to work out has been to set my digital camera to the same aperture and ISO as the film camera, point the video light at the ceiling so that it lights evenly, and use the highest speed shutter sync I can on everything. Generally that's 1/200 on the digital cameras, and 1/500 on the film cameras. If the digital images are slightly blown out, the film images will be perfectly exposed.</p>

Two remarks:<br>First, you're not really comparing what the different cameras are capable of, but how they compare after leveling out most differences. (Like comparing a 24 MP camera to a 60 MP camera after downsampling the 60 MP image to 24 MP.)<br>Second, the weakest link is the Epson. It is the limiting factor as far as the film cameras are concerned.

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 21, 2013; 02:46 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Two remarks:<br />First, you're not really comparing what the different cameras are capable of, but how they compare after leveling out most differences. (Like comparing a 24 MP camera to a 60 MP camera after downsampling the 60 MP image to 24 MP.)<br />Second, the weakest link is the Epson. It is the limiting factor as far as the film cameras are concerned.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First, you're totally correct. I keep posting over and over that this isn't a proper scientific test, and even put it in bold in the original post. This test, or "test" if you prefer is only a test of how this equipment relates to my own personal working methods, and is designed to show me what gives the best results at the settings I use and the size I generally print. I put that in bold too. The only reason I chose to share it was in case there were other people out there that may work similarly, and print at similar sizes. I didn't bother comparing all the cameras/lenses at f/5.6 or printing everything larger than 12" on the short side, because I very rarely do those things. And since I know for a fact that the 4x5 is going to give me the best possible massive print on the rare occasion when I want to make one, I didn't bother paying for a good scan of the 120 film, as I know it will be worse.</p>

<p>Second, see the above post. It is a limiting factor, but aside from how flat it can hold roll film, it's plenty sufficient for the sizes I need to print. Again, this is about my workflow - this is not a scientific discussion of the possibilities of each camera when they are all operated independently at their own optimal settings.</p>

<p>Three out of the four responses have all been arguing that this test wasn't scientific enough. I totally agree. Was I not clear enough about that in my original post?</p>

<p>Also, I'm not stalking my thread because I'm a narcissist or want to have arguments or anything :) I'm home sick today, and I can't sleep. Might as well talk about photography if you can't go do it, right?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Have you tried comparing high end flatbed scans of optical enlargements made in the darkroom, as well as scans of the negatives?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />Like all digital vs. film comparisons, this is a digital vs. scanner comparison. A true comparison would be a digital print by the current best method vs. an optical print using the best materials.</p>

Zack,<br><br>Yes, it was clear that this was not a scientific test. The remarks i made weren't scientific ones either. ;-)<br><br>The Epson isn't only not quite that good in holding the film flat. The resolution of it's optical system isn't quite 'there' either. So even if you do not need more pixels, a better scanner will provide higher quality 'pixels'.<br>I know the Epsons, and there is no affordable way to get better scans from 4x5 (you can pay less, by being highly selective and send only the few selected negs out for high end scanning). But you can do a lot better scanning roll film on something like the Nikon scanners.<br>Not cheap either. Though not really that much more expensive compared to the Epsons and (!) considering what both deliver. And cheap when compared to the next step up (Imacons) which do better than the Nikons (not in resolution, but in qualty), but not that much better.<br>So before you decide anything, try a Nikon scanner. (Since you still have a lot of film, why not? And you can always find a buyer for the Nikon should you not like it, have reached the last of your stock of film, or whatever other reason there may be to turn it into money again.) But then get the glass film holder for the Nikon as well!<br.<br>Or in short: before deciding based on this test, see whether you can't do even better than a full frame Nex by tweaking your workflow/adjusting your equipment a bit.

<p>Through my own tests. I haven't used larger formats. So Nikon 35mm film vs a 6MP digital. I have a Epson V700 and a Nikon Coolscan 4000. </p>

<p>Although I have not corrected the difference in dof, that's just one stop approx I think. Betwen digital APC and full 35mm. </p>

<p>For really small sizes like decent web sizes, if you factor out individual color styles, I couldn't tell the two apart side/side. Once you have a print around 8x12, digital is more critically sharp and smoother etc. Film has more grain characteritics maybe more shadow detail. Film can also be printed larger without breaking up as much as the 6MP. 16x12 it begins to be seen at least onscreen but probably not evident on the print until the next size up and viewed accordingly. </p>

<p>Having not tried larger formats yet, I intend to. My assumption is that, digital is going to be provide a cleaner grain free critical sharp look if you are going to use DX, FX digital or medium format digital. But if you have a larger format that is in film it can be printed larger.</p>

<p>Delete - system issue , I didn't press it twice, just waited a long time ....</p>

<p>Have any of you seen this?<br>

<br /><strong>Digital camera scanning technique: comparison against an Epson v700 (and a drum)</strong><br /> <a href="/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00b7Fk</a><br>

<br />It compares "camera scanning" against a V700 and drum scanning. Camera scanning results were a lot closer to drum scanning results than they were to a V700 results.<br>

<br />This thread was posted several months ago and nobody has disputed the claims, AFAIK.</p>

<p>Just correcting my before. Actually with the CS even at 8x12 you start to see film breaking up but probably won't notice it until the next size or two larger ... But with 12MP and up ... I think that gap may close down but I have not tested that (yet).</p>

<p>Re: the prev link. I don't dispute it, I don't think of of us are, but for me setting up may not be that easy, in terms of shooting multiple frames and stitch .. however it may be ok if you take a single shot approx and then crop/rotate as needed, so a common dSLR yields a 24MP size. In terms of a V700 scan. The issue is that a flatbed is fixed focussing, so if you are asking about critical sharpness you will never get it. It's like attaching a soft filter in front of your lens. V700 scans may be good enough for the viewer up to 12x16 incches off 35mm film. With medium format film obviously larger .... Again if the question is critical sharpness IME from using the V700 and the CS4000, even at 6x4 inches at 240dpi viewed on screen the CS looks better, with the V700 there are things that the scanner just doesn't capture. However if the size onscreen is maybe 1024x768 I couldn't tell the difference apart side by side .... one scanned by the V700 and the other by the CS4000. To me, V700 maybe good enough for some people at least at my camera club even printed 11x15 (actual) then matted up and put in a competition. If you really want the potential then maybe use the esp for medium format which the dedicated scanners are very expensive, use the V700 for most things but outsource the occasional scan.</p>

<p>There are flatbeds, there are the discontinued non-serviceable Coolscan 9000 for medium format at $2000+ or the new Plusek ($2000) or there are the $60000+ Imacons and up .... </p>

<p> </p>

That's sort of my thought, Ray. If said FF NEX is priced similarly to a D600, then with current used camera pricing, it looks

like upgrading would be about an even swap between the NEX 7 and the Hassy kit. A better scanner will increase the

quality of my MF scans, yes. But that's a $2000 difference is purchases, and that sort of money buys a LOT of 4x5 film.

 

If I was after optimal quality, I'd get more per dollar shooting 4x5 than I would buying a new (used) scanner and more 120

film. If I were after the best quality/convenience ratio, it looks like an FF camera is the way to go, since a digital MF back

is above my pay grade.

 

It just seems that the technology has evolved to the point where the best reason to use my Hasselblad is that I like using

my Hasselblad. That's a plenty good reason for a lot of people, but not for me. If it's no longer the best OR the most

convenient option, and since I can't afford to let expensive equipment collect dust, there's no reason to keep it around.

 

But I'll probably buy yet another 124G, so I have a fun camera, quality be damned.

<p>Arh .. for others I correct my last post first paragraph. 8x12 digital 6MP starts to breakup but probably won't be evident until next size or two up. Film scans like 35mm doesn't breakup as the digital. Film even on the V700 may not look as sharp but they don't have that digital break up look. Same with the CS. But of course CS looks nicer than the V700 :) Many people say 6MP was their deciding point when they dropped 35mm film, yes for most print sizes say 16x12's and even for v big enlargements, I have printed 24x36 (inches!), a colleague wanted it but she was very happy. So v practical without complaints for the mass. I would assume that with 8MP or 12MP that may/may not be there (breaking up) but certainly any cameras IME from the 6MP can produce giant poster and pple are happy with.</p>

<p>For the scanner. Yeah .. FF dSLR or Mirrorless are pretty swell, convenient etc. Medium formats it would really have to be $2000 scanner or outsourced for the few. From what I seen with the V700, i don't have a medium format Coolscan hahah. Medium format on the V700 probably isn't gonna cut the mustard if you compete it against a FF digital. Large format yeah. The film and development is not cheap too. I personally find the MF and LF is what we personally enjoy using than the costs itself. At the end of the day there is a huge amount of reso or detail in that film waiting to be extracted out, it's just if you can deal with the hassle and the cost ;-) There are digital medium format but that's a larger mortgage....</p>

<p>If people are wanting critical sharpness it is digital. Due that that 6MP overdid 35mm film in that dept. I suspect that larger formats still won't have that critical sharpness over any digital. Sure big film or even small film can be printed v largely. But for that critical sharpness, clean grain look, straight lines in the buildings it's digital. Any film scans is a 2nd generation file. Critical sharpness isn't really reso, it's maybe the look of digital. </p>

<p>Ray, I would sort of agree with you on 6MP being equal to 35mm film, and sort of not. Sharpness-wise, I think it was plenty enough to compete with colour 35mm film, and some black and white film stocks. However, there is much more to a camera/film/sensor's ability than sharpness, and that's why this whole "test" came about.</p>

<p>I think it wasn't until the D300 came around that I was willing to ditch 35mm entirely. I was on the fence with the D200. The extra megapixels helped, but those cameras also had a longer tonal range than, say, the D70 - especially the D300. And they were also much better at high ISOs. 1600 ISO is usually plenty for me, and black and white 35mm film will do that fine and still make a decent 8x10, but the 6MP DSLRs won't. A newer camera shooting at 6MP and 1600 ISO will look fine as an 8x10, but the D70 was borderline useless at that ISO.</p>

<p>These days, the only appeal of 35mm is that the images more closely match those from my Hassy, which makes it handy if I have a specific project in mind. Then again, if I'm shooting a specific project, I should probably be using the same camera for all of it.</p>

<p>Though I have to say, the way the 24MP Sony sensor sees light and tonal range is VERY similar to the way film sees it. Digital cameras are generally more likely to clip highlights, and often have a lot more detail in shadow areas then you would imagine from looking at the picture on the LCD. That Sony sensor picks up a lot more noise in the shadow areas and detail in there is much muddier, but like film it prefers the highlight end of the tonal scale.<br /><br />That (seemingly) small difference, that can't really even be tested objectively without resorting to a lot of facts and figures that almost require an engineering degree, was the entire reason that I decided to switch most of my shooting from Nikon to Sony. It's too early to tell if this is going to be something that Sony tries to do with all their sensors or if its just specific to their current higher-end models, but if it's a continuing theme with their cameras, then I'll probably be an NEX user for life.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/zack_zoll/8404669729/in/photostream<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zack_zoll/8405764064/in/photostream<br>

These are two more images from that shoot, this time with the D600 & 70-200 at f/8 and the NEX & 50mm at f/11. Flickr decided to sharpen these for me too :( The NEX image is the top one.</p>

<p>Maybe it's just my personal taste, but it looks to me that while the overall tonal range of the D600 is greater, highlights detail is not as well defined. The image is sharper, particularly in the hair. The D600 also has a slight magenta cast, and a <em>very</em> slight red cast - although I'm pretty sure that part is the result of the lens, and not the sensor. The difference in tonal range could also be the result of the older coatings on the lens I used on the NEX. But since the only early-multicoat German lenses available for Nikon that I know about are fairly rare Leicas, that sort of prices me out. I know there are a lot of other fantastic lens choices other than that for EVERY camera brand, but I strongly prefer the overall look of those 1970s-era lenses.</p>

<p>It seems as though current Sony cameras are just more optimized for shooting high-key images like this one than Nikons. Which probably shouldn't come as a surprise, since Sony's big-name portrait shooter is Nigel Barker, and Nikon's is Joe McNally. That preference in tonal range also means that Nikons are going to be much better for day-to-day shooting. But since I'm very specific in my needs (as I'm sure you've all figured out by now) that's where I landed, and where I'll be staying for the time being.</p>

<p>I think the scanning seriously let down the Hasselblad. I think a scan of a well-made print would show the image quality much more accurately.</p>

I used to scan prints on an Agfa scanner (forgot the type) before the Nikon Coolscan was available. In my experience, prints don't scan that well. I rescanned many negatives after i saw what the dedicated film scanner delieverd.<br>But that difference could of course be due to the Agfa scanner (flat bed scanners have improved a lot since).<br>There is one thing though, that must be done right when scanning prints: you need excellent prints to eek out everything a dedicated film scanner will get out of your negs.<br>

<p>This is a fine comparison if you only plan to take portaits of the same woman in a black dress behind the same background, with the same type of lighting... </p>

<blockquote>

<p>For critical sharpness, use known good equipment, good technique and a target with sufficient detail to allow you to assess your results for the target audience. Good enough film or sensor as appropriate as everyone has a ceiling of what they can achieve.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Les:<br>

From your test it looks like the film has a lot more details than the 4000 dpi scanner could dig out. In fact your K20D "scan" shows that it's about double the linear resolution of the K20D itself. That's scary... That means it takes a 4x14.6=58.4MP KXXXD to deliver the kind of resolution. But didn't plenty of tests showed that 135 can 'never' deliver anything meaningful above 20MP? Or is there something that's defying some physics here? </p>

<i>"Or is there something that's defying some physics here?"</i><br><br>Or is there something fishy about all those tests that show that 135 can't deliver more than 20MP?

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=282122">Q.G. de Bakker</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 25, 2013; 07:56 a.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Or is there something that's defying some physics here?"</em><br /><br />Or is there something fishy about all those tests that show that 135 can't deliver more than 20MP?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think there's something fishy about <em>any</em> test that tells you "how many megapixels" film is. I wouldn't doubt that someone that uses mediocre film with a grainy developer, and isn't very careful with exposure, would get 'honest' results saying that it was equal to 3 megapixels. I also wouldn't doubt that someone that uses fine-grain film with a fine-grain developer, and exposes and develops it very carefully, would get 'honest' results that say 35mm film is equal to 20, or 30 megapixels.</p>

<p>And I realize that I'm not making matters any better by posting a mediocre scan, and saying 'this is what I got.' I know what my film is capable of with a great scan, but that isn't what I'm showing ... so there's some disconnect between what I'm doing and what you see, just as with the people who are trying to tell you how many 'megapixels' film is.</p>

 

I agree Zack. There is an importance difference indeed between what perhaps could be achieved, and what <i>we</i> can achieve with the means (equipment and workflow) we each happen to have at our disposal. If we want to decide what would be best for us, it's good knowing what perhaps could be done if there were no limits set by available funds and time and such. But we can't ignore those factors and have to weigh one thing against another and decide what's best, what works for us.<br>Just as long as all the options are clear and understood.