Interesting resolution chart

[steve_larese1]

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/uploadfaq/printsize.html

 

According to this, 35mm film produces a higher-resolution image as a 12.7 MB

camera at the same given size.

 

(I'll put on a helmet and duck now...)

[steve_dawson1]

Yes but surely it's the old thing of whether more pixels is necessarily the same thing as more information.

 

On the other hand I was surprised recently when I did some rather unscientific comparisons and found that film captured significantly more information than my D70, and just slightly more than my D200. I don't claim any particular validity for this, but it did surprise me. In the real world (my real world, anyway) it doesn't make much difference.

[bobatkins]

Scanned at 5000dpi you get more pixels, but that doesn't mean you get higher resolution.

[stevenseelig]

how large are the particles on film surface? obviously a large range.. but sort of an average

for ISO 100 and ISO 400 film?

[Alan Johnson]

Here are some grains:

 

http://www.optics.rochester.edu/workgroups/cml/opt307/spr04/jidong/

 

But they tend to clump together so it's hard to compare with pixel size.

[sayyid_qutb]

shoot in the real world and stop testing

[dalahorse]

West Coat Imaging is showing what resolution you need to capture/scan to print at various

PPI values. That's it. They can scan a massive number of pixels out of a small area of film.

They're then taking scan PPI for various film format surface areas and translating the

resolution to various print PPI values.

 

I really don't think WCI is trying to start a film vs digital debate.