Equivalent digital resolution to film

<p>My old Canon EOS elan II film camera has now lost its mind and needs to be put down. I am shopping for a digital to replace it (and hopefully be able to use my AF lenses?) but am not clear on what resolution of digital is equivalent to 200 or 400 ASA film in 35mm.</p>

<p>I heard that my film camera had a resolution that was equal to a 15Megapixel camera, which i know I cannot afford. <br>

Is there any way to equate the effective resolutions of film and digital? There are plenty of used 8Mpx cameras out there that would work for me if it is not a step back in picture quality. </p>

<p>Thanks for any help. </p>

<p>How large do you print?</p>

<p>Just by chance I found myself at this page earlier today, which has points that may help you in your thinking:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrvsfilm.htm">link:Digital SLR vs Film Scans</a></p>

<p>Depends on who's test you use. According to Popular Photography even the best Sony 24 mp camera only just comes close to ISO 100 film in 35mm format in absolute resolution. But other tests have shown that a good 12 mp camera can produce images as good as a 645 MF camera. For example, here are a few of the tests:<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2008-09-new.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2008-09-new.htm</a> (under Sept 20)<br>

<a href="http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/d2xreview.html">http://www.michaelclarkphoto.com/d2xreview.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153.html">http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153.html</a></p>

<p>and there are many more.</p>

<p><em>Is there any way to equate the effective resolutions of film and digital?</em></p>

<p>An excellent way is to compare prints side by side. Assuming good shooting technique and processing I think 8mp APS easily matches 35mm at low ISOs, and as the ISO goes up is much cleaner looking than 35mm. </p>

<p>The limiting factor is probably your scanner, especially these days with film scanners on the decline. My old scanner was about the equivalent of a 6MP DSLR for my eyes. File sizes aside, my better Nikon Coolscan V ED (no longer sold) seems to give me images that seem pretty equivalent to a 10MP camera or so. I think my Canon 5D (mk I) probably has more useable resolution. I suspect any modern DSLR including the Rebels would probably satisfy you as far as image quality is concerned.</p>

<p>The truth is that I was pretty amazed at what my first DSLR could do (Konica Minolta 5D 6.1MP). I dont' think you have to buy a really expensive Canon to reach the same conclusion.</p>

I have just recently seen excellent reviews that have indicated that the resolution of 35mm film is undefineable by digital standards. It could conceivably continue to yield additional detail up to 100MP, but this cannot be proven yet with today's technology. This has so much to do with technique, that many of the online reviews are misleading. If a reviewer "proves" that film is only 8MP, he has usually used a cheap film scanner or some other simple mistake. The best reviews I've seen involve printing an enlargement from the film first, up to 20 times the size of the negative. Then they'll scan the print under high resolution, like 4000dpi or greater. When comparing this to a digital image from a 24MP camera, the film can easily be shown to give more detail under close inspection. Just how much more will have to wait to be proven. Until we see a 35mm digital camera with a 100MP sensor, we still won't know the comparative limits of film resolution.

 

Here's the review I recently found:

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/page169/page169.html

 

I have seen other similar reviews before, but failed to bookmark them at the time. Of course, this still doesn't address the issue of, "Does this even matter?" We've all seen by now that an 8MP digital camera can make comparable prints to 35mm film, that hold up under scrutiny surprisingly well, at least until you get really, really close, or magnify really, really large. So the common-sense answer is that it just doesn't matter which system you use from a resolution standpoint. Personally, I would shoot for at least a 12MP camera from the latest generation of digitals. This has the best chance of impressing you, rather than disappointing you.

<p>If you are happy with film, buy a used film camera from a reliable dealer. Even a cheap, old film rebel will work with your lenses. And some of the last are pretty nice! Even a used Elan II is less expensive than a digital camera.<br>

-Bob</p>

<p>The number of line-pairs per millimeter a film will resolve may be in this table:<br>

<a href="http://www.cacreeks.com/films.htm">http://www.cacreeks.com/films.htm</a><br>

 <br>

To get from line-pairs per millimeter to pixel equivalent for 35mm film, multiply ( lppm x2 x24 xlppm x2 x36 ).<br>

It's an approximation that ignores a lot but gives a rough idea. 63 lppm gives about 14 m-pixels.Higher than this even a good lens may be limiting.</p>

<p>I went through this calculation years ago when deciding when to convert to digital. The limiting factor is not film resolution but lens resolution. With the best film around, you can expect lens resolution to top out around 80 lp/mm. This is under perfect laboratory shooting situations. In real life, you will get less due to various real life complications such as camera shake. I calculated that 16MP was good enough to be 35mm equivalent.</p>

<p>However an even lower limit was paper and screen resolution. Unlike slide film, you never look directly at a digital image. Like negative film you have to "print" it either to paper or a computer screen and the resolutions on those mediums is far less than what the lens or film can record. The practical reality is 5MP will give you an 8x10 print that most people will say is better than film. The reason is digital images have no grain and the lack of grain makes digital images look much better. Digital images have noise but that is not as noticeable as grain.</p>

<p>So there are factors with digital that make it better than film that has nothing to do with resolution. Color rendition is another. Different films were known for their different looks due to the way they recorded color. Afga films were known for their pastel colors while Fuji films had a neon brightness. A friend who was a painter found that some films could not accurately record certain colors when the paint was acrylic but worked fine with oil paints. Digital tends to be far better in recording colors accurately.</p>

<p>I also found that the digital darkroom was far superior to the wet darkroom. I could manipulate my photos in ways that were not possible with film while sitting in a well lit room and breathing the aroma of fine coffee rather than developing chemicals. With digital, you want to do darkroom work as it is so easy. Most editing programs have automated the most common functions such as red eye removal.</p>

<p>However the best reason to go digital is the cost. You can shoot your digital photos, download then to a computer, clear the memory and you are ready to shoot again. Total out of pocket cost is zero. With film, you have to process the film and buy replacement rolls. That averaged about $25 a roll when I last shot film. As a result I paid for the cost of my digital camera and lens in just one year from the savings in film processing and purchases.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

 

<p>IMO, a DSLR of 8 to 10 MP gives the same <em>practical effective resolution</em> as ISO 200 or 400 color print film, 12 MP is comparable ISO 100. But the DSLR wins hands-down in noise/grain, color accuracy, and handling odd lighting. Print film still has some advantage in handling scenes with very large brightness ranges.</p>

<p>I suppose that, theoretically, if you use a very high-resolution film like Fuji Pro 160 or Kodak Ektar 100, you might just maybe be able to achieve the same effective resolution as a 24 MP full-frame DSLR. But you won't get it without a really good scan (drum scan or <em>maybe</em> Nikon with glass holder), and the fine detail in the film will be substantially masked by grain, and the DSLR will be much cleaner.</p>

 

<p>Jeepers; all this makes me want to place my 50 megapixel 4x5 scan back on my 4x5 Graflex SLR and use its Kodak Anastigmat #33 at F11</p>

<p>Rather than debating ad nauseam this old old topic, two facts come to mind: </p>

<p>- I always found even the <em>best</em> 35mm film negative could be enlarged to <em>at most</em> 12x for about a 12x18 inch print if I wanted an exhibition quality print. </p>

<p>- I've won professional competitions with a 13x17 inch print made from a 5 Mpixel digital capture (Olympus E-1 with Olympus ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5 lens fitted made the photo). </p>

<p>What that suggests to me is that a quality 5 Mpixel digital camera with a good lens is at least on par with any 35mm film image with respect to print quality. Which in turn means that *any* DSLR being made today will produce better results than 35mm film, since all the DSLR cameras being made today have more than 5Mpixels resolution and likely better noise characteristics compared to the Olympus E-1 which first went on the market at the end of 2003. </p>

<p>I also know that as soon as I started shooting with a Canon 10D in 2003 (a 6 Mpixel camera), I sold all my 35mm film cameras and have never once found that anything I've photographed since was lacking compared to what I used to shoot in 35mm film. </p>

<p>For black and white, darkroom, traditional silver prints, film is way better than any 35 mm digital I've seen (though maybe the new Leica MP will compare). For color negatives scanned, probably 12 mp digital is better than film. For color slides scanned, Fuji Velvia, 12 mp digital isn't nearly as good as film. I'm comparing a topnotch camera and lens for 35 mm film. Medium format film is way better than any digital, if printed in the darkroom. I haven;t compared medium or large format transparencies scanned.</p>

<p>For black and white, darkroom, traditional silver prints, film is way better than any 35 mm digital I've seen (though maybe the new Leica MP will compare). For color negatives scanned, probably 12 mp digital is better than film. For color slides scanned, Fuji Velvia, 12 mp digital isn't nearly as good as film. I'm comparing a topnotch camera and lens for 35 mm film. Medium format film is way better than any digital, if printed in the darkroom. I haven;t compared medium or large format transparencies scanned.</p>

<p>In my experience there is no specific number of MP which beats 35mm film. Instead there is a range of images you get from both film and digital. To me the average 35mm film frame is equivalent to about 6 MP but film can be as good as 12 MP or more depending on the equipment. Of course many people will still prefer the lookof film but that is a different issue.</p>

<p>Here is an entertaining clip from the 'Gadget Show' - a UK Channel 5 TV prog comparing film and digital. It is worth looking at for several reasons, one of which is the lovely Suzi Perry.</p>

<p>http://fwd.five.tv/gadget-show/videos/challenge/challenge-blow-up-part-3</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Here is an entertaining clip from the 'Gadget Show' - a UK Channel 5 TV prog comparing film and digital. It is worth looking at for several reasons, one of which is the lovely Suzi Perry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Suzi Perry is the <strong>only</strong> reason for looking at that clip. As a test, it's pointless as the images were enlarged way beyond the capabilities of either system - and they used ISO400 colour print film for the film shots!</p>

<p>My own view on the film/digi debate is that both systems are about as good as they are going to get as far as resolution is concerned so that the limiting factor in both cases is the laws of physics.</p>

<p>i.e. For a given sensor size such as a 35mm frame of film and an FX sensor, resolutions are about the same. Make a 5" x 4" sensor and it too will more or less equal a 5" x 4" piece of film. As for the look - that's a different matter!</p>

<p>yes but if you print the film optically then the scanner has no place in the question. Or if you shoot slides then again no digital interferance with the film to view process.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... what resolution of digital is equivalent to 200 or 400 ASA film in 35mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>About 4MP if you're looking for a print that is as noiseless and sharp as that from a DSLR. If you care more about equivalent usable resolution, any 8MP DSLR will about do it.</p>

<p>Paul</p>

<p>I do not know if this is significant to you (it is to me) but there are important differences between small sensor and large sensor other than resolution. The issues of this are seldom considered but are what every photographer (not specification analyst) should be interested in.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>If you chase images where everything is in focus from front to back then smaller sensor is the way to go</li>

<li>If you seek more reach from your telephoto lenses then smaller sensor is the path</li>

<li>However if you use wide - normal - midtelephoto and like shallow depth of field then full frame is for you.</li>

</ul>

<p>essentially all will have enough resolution for your needs.</p>

<p>The number of pixels produced by a camera is a good indication for its maximum print size.</p>

<p>The size of the sensor is what a photographer how is interested in the rendering of their subject matter should be interested in.</p>

<p>Personally I like both for different reasons. I use 4/3 for telephoto and compact equipment and larger for more gentle renderings.<br>

You can only get renderings like this with a larger format<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4019/4413731276_f5dbe83d3d.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>and smaller sensors help to get more reach from your tele<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2776/4321761336_336988ce8b.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="350" /></p>

<p>Asking how much info is in a piece of film as data was being asked and experimented on by Kodak in teh late 1970s even; when there was a film based digital storage project in San Diego. Then one could go back further to the 1930's with Microfile microfilm recording documents; and World war two "Vmail"; where letters were microfilmed and the microfilm was airmailed to save weight.<br /> The question will be asked over and over as sensors and films change. This who want an eact answer are like want a <a href="http://spie.org/"><strong>SPIE </strong></a>speaker in San Diego said on the subject about 1980; it is like "wanting an exact answer to shoes per women" or "Lures per fisherman"; or "lenses per photographer".</p>

<p>Back when I was deciding this problem, I had 8x10 prints made from both 3MP and 5MP cameras and Ektacolor 100. The 3 prints were indistinguishable at normal viewing distance. Close up the 5MP prints looked better due to a lack of grain. Given that a DSLR today will have at least 10MP, this means that for all practical purposes, the lowest resolution DSLR today will give your prints up to 11x14 that are as good as film.</p>

<p>From the very beginning the dynamic range of digital was consider equivalent to slide, not negative film and the early recommendation was to expose as you would for slide, not negative film. So all the exposure test provided by Les Sarile does is provide evidence that this recommendation is correct.</p>

<p>However the results are also somewhat irrelevant with HDR (High Dynamic Range) shooting. Any DSLR will automatically do 3 shots bracketing. You can then combine all 3 shots together to get a dynamic range greater than any negative film.</p>

<p>Digital means that many of the paradigm of films no longer apply. ISO can be changed from shot to shot. So you can shoot at ISO 100 but change to 400 or even 1600 when the light level changes and then back to ISO 100. You could not do this with film unless you have a medium format camera with interchangeable backs. In effect ISO becomes a 3th exposure control along with aperture and shutter speed. You can shoot flowing water at ISO 100 to get the blurring and then shoot at ISO 400 to freeze action in the next shot. With noise reduction software you can even get the image quality of the two shots to match up to the point that you cannot tell the difference in noise. This is another difference between film and digital. With film, increased ISO gives increased grain which you are stuck with. With digital, increased ISO means increased noise which you can reduce or even eliminate in post processing. Also people simply do not notice noise as much as they notice grain, so a "noisy" image can look perfect to people. Basically worrying about MP equivalence with film is rather irrelevant today because the changes in ISO with digital are very different than the changes in film.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

 

<p>Yes you can use HDR with film as well and in this one case film will have an advantage, at least for now. Unlike film, where the R&D effort is becoming more and more limited, R&D on improving digital cameras is increasing. So in a few more years, this advantage probably will be gone.</p>

<p>In the mean time you can take advantage of all the other benefits of digital, such as shooting at different ISO from shot to shot rather than shooting at only the one ISO. This has been a wonderful advantage as the sun sets and the light changes.</p>

<p>Then there is problem of color balance. Film is either daylight or tungsten balanced. Digital can be set for daylight, tungsten and fluorescent from shot to shot. You can even have custom color balance when you have a mixture of tungsten and fluorescent. This is a common combination in ballrooms and convention hall rooms. Again another wonderful feature as I move from outdoor to indoor shooting.</p>

<p>I already mention the cost savings. I spent over a $1000 convert to a DSLR system and made back the money in one year due to the savings from <strong>not</strong> having to process film or buy new rolls. One reason for the quick return on my money was I was shooting more. Besides knowing that each shot was free was the fact that today with 16GB memory cards, you have some 500+ shots per card. No more changing rolls every 36 shots. No more extra canisters of film as I have never filled a card in a single day. No more missed shots because I was changing film.</p>

<p>You cannot begin the appreciate the advantages of digital over film until you start shooting and finding out that all the annoyances with film that you had to accept are now gone. For me the very few advantages of film simply do not compensate for all the advantages of digital. And it is not as if it was an either/or situation. There is nothing to stop you from having it both ways. You can keep your old film cameras and shoot film in addition to digital. It is no worst than carrying multiple SLRs which many photographers did to compensate for the limitations of film. It was quite weight off my back as I no longer carry multiple SLRs with slow daylight film and fast tungsten film. However I suspect that if you go with a combination of film and digital, you will soon be all digital.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

 

<p><em>"Color balance . . . care to share your results from film that didn't suit you where digital did or is this yet another theory you're presenting?"</em></p>

<p>Anyone who has shot film knows the results and the OP is a film shooter. You can duplicate the result by shooting jpeg images in the daylight color balance setting under tungsten light with any DSLR.</p>

<p>The subject is whether the OP can afford a digital camera that has the resolution of his old film camera. The answer is definitely "yes" as even the cheapest DSLR has enough resolution for all practical purposes. When people in a thread start to critique the replies and challenge the factual assertions then the thread is drifting off into unpleasant territory and has clearly ended as a useful information thread. So I am taking this thread off my notification list.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

 

<p>My 21MP ff camera produces much better large prints, 20"x30" and 24"x36" than my Velvia Cibachromes. My old 1D at 4.1MP prints perfect 8x10's, if it is not a highly detailed scene then 12x18's look great too.</p>

<p>I know a working pro who is at the top of her international field who sells many 20x30's from her 10mp 1D MkII.</p>

<p>Paul if you want to go digital then matching your 400iso film specs is a non issue.</p>