mt4x4 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 <blockquote> <p>So I'd say no. Not enough has been said for people who question things.</p> </blockquote> <p>Please...point out 1 bit of information in this thread that hasn't already been beaten to death in one of the other FILM vs DIGITAL threads.<br> The entire thing seems like nothing but a troll to me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 <p>Lannie, your statement is very sensible. With current technology and lenses there is not a path for DSLRs to catch up with medium format.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 <p>Daniel, it was linearly resized. Shot with 60mm macro (sharpest lens available) at f8 iso 100. <br /> This is at 100% so you can resize with bicubic or fractals:</p> <p> </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 <p>Let me know if you want me to send you the raw file.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjferron Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 <p>This is getting old. If you have discovered your magic bullet be it film or digital then go shoot and be happy. I like 35mm B&W film along side my digtal because I like the look, the control and the craft of developing and printing. I doubt you can get more than say 8-10mp worth of detail out of the sharpest 35mm B&W films but so what? That's enough for a fine 8x10 which is plenty big enough for me.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>"I doubt you can get more than say 8-10mp worth of detail out of the sharpest 35mm B&W films but so what?"</p> <p>That's odd. I get 20mp scans from a Nikon V.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjferron Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>I'm not talking file size I'm talking detail. The two are not related.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>"I doubt you can get more than say 8-10mp worth of detail out of the sharpest 35mm B&W films but so what?"</p> <p>The equivalent of eight to ten mega-pixels goes a long way in black and white. Color yields a great deal more--just how much is the question.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>There was, of course, Tech Pan. . . .</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>"I'm not talking file size I'm talking detail. The two are not related."</p> <p>How then is detail quantified? What do you mean by "8-10mp worth of detail"?</p> <p>Also, it is not file size. It is the number of pixels of the file, its dimensions.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielleetaylor Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p><em>Let me know if you want me to send you the raw file.</em></p> <p>I would love to see it. Thanks!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>Daniel,</p> <p>this is the raw for the dynamic range test:<br> <a rel="nofollow" href="https://download.yousendit.com/Y2ovYkJ0UnFEa1dGa1E9PQ" target="_blank">https://download.yousendit.com/Y2ovYkJ0UnFEa1dGa1E9PQ</a></p> <p>this is the raw for the can picture test:<br> <a rel="nofollow" href="https://download.yousendit.com/Y2ovYkJ1ZDVYSHlGa1E9PQ" target="_blank">https://download.yousendit.com/Y2ovYkJ1ZDVYSHlGa1E9PQ</a> <a rel="nofollow" href="https://download.yousendit.com/Y2ovYkJ1ZDVYSHlGa1E9PQ" target="_blank"></a></p> <p>this is the raw for the resolution vs 6x7 test:<br> <a rel="nofollow" href="https://download.yousendit.com/Y2ovYkJqTSt0TWxMWEE9PQ" target="_blank">https://download.yousendit.com/Y2ovYkJqTSt0TWxMWEE9PQ</a></p> <p>Let me know if you want me to mail you the film (on conditional return).</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>"<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=862488">Michael Ferron</a> , Feb 20, 2009; 01:10 a.m.</p> <p>I'm not talking file size I'm talking detail. The two are not related."</p> <p>Correct. A 10MP DSLR has only about 6MP of true resolution. A good 20MP scan of Velvia has about 20MP of resolution (and a lot detail left on the slide to recover).</p> <p>This is how much the Coolscan can't capture from Velvia vs an imacon (copyright of Rishi Sanyal):<br> http://staff.washington.edu/rjsanyal/Photography/35mm_Scanners/NikonLS-5000_vs_Imacon848.jpg</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>Michael, I find your post and odd one. There are sample links posted in this thread that show 35mm exceeding a 12mp DSLR. Interesting that with that evidence, you still claim 35mm is topped out at 8-10. We've even had samples posted that show for fine grained color film, even the 24mp Sony wasn't that far ahead of 35mm and a 6300ppi Imacon scan.</p> <p>Maybe you'd like to view those before you post and opinion based upon....well...who knows what.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>"Correct. A 10MP DSLR has only about 6MP of true resolution."</p> <p>What is "true resolution" and how is it related to megapixels? Are the other 4MP chopped liver? What happened to them?</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>"that show 35mm exceeding a 12mp DSLR."</p> <p>So, when Michael says the best b&w 35mm film has only "8-10" megapixels of "detail", he means the detail in a scanned 35mm film that he's seen looks pretty much like whatever he thinks an 8-10 megapixel dslr would show.</p> <p>Do lenses, among other things, have anything to do with "detail" or "true resolution" of whatever it is you're comparing? Will my 20MP scan have no more detail than any shot from my old 8mp p&s will?</p> <p>How are megapixels a measure of detail? I get the feeling there's no metric for all this megapixel/detail talk.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>What about a "control" in these tests or at least another comparison, say using a film recorder to capture a dslr file onto Velvia and comparing it to a 35mm Velvia frame under a loupe on a light table?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>Don, true resolution is the product of the maximum number of line-pairs recorded in each direction multiplied by 4.</p> <p>Any yes, the rest is chopped liver.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landrum Kelly Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>"We've even had samples posted that show for fine grained color film, even the 24mp Sony wasn't that far ahead of 35mm and a 6300ppi Imacon scan." --Dave Luttmann</p> <p>Dave, can you give us a link to that thread? Thanks.</p> <p>--Lannie</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Luttmann Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>Lannie, here's the link. The film was pretty close in rez, albeit with more noise. The 6300ppi scan translates into a a 300dpi print at 20x30. The scan was downsampled to the same size as the digital file (6048 wide). This is a good sample of 35mm really topping out around the 15-17mp for most color use. Of course, some people still post links to sites that claim 3mp surpassed film, and that 11mp digital beats 6x7.....both which are proven vastly incorrect based upon the scan samples below.</p> <p>On print, you would see the grain from the film file. A film like Ektar would appear about 1/3 less grainy with less substrate issues in the scan. I'd say Ektar couple with good glass and a decent scan will give results at 16x24 that will rival or surpass any 10-12mp DSLR. Not based upon opinion....but based upon a print I made from a drum scan sample taken with Leica glass.</p> <p><a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29704253">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=29704253</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_e Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>If it is so cut and dry, Mauro, why all the argument? Even those on the same side of the digital/film divide don't come up with the same numbers quite often. What will I prove setting up such a test? And with what kit? Aren't there other factors besides one being "digital" and the other being "film", like for example, the sensor size and pixel density, or the film emulsion, and for both, the lens?</p> <p>And why not record a dslr file to Velvia, and compare it to Velvia in its 'native' format? Why must the comparison be run on dslr's 'native' turf? Just because images can be posted to a forum or blog?</p> <p>I can't believe engineers take these digital vs film threads seriously.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>Lannie,<br> this is Ektar with a Coolscan (3700 lines pph):<br> http://www.shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/6616619_YJEwK#429860538_sAEAm-O-LB</p> <p>this is the 24MP Sony A900 from Dpreview (3300 lines pph as a big stretch):<br> http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD700/samples/comparedto/res/A900_Res_f7.1.JPG</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>For comparison,<br /> the 40D resolves aprox 2000 lines pph.<br /> the D2X resolves aprox 2200 lines pph.<br>Velvia 6x7 (just what the Coolscan delivers) is aprox 9000 lines pph.</p><p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>All the above is for high contrast detail areas in the picture. For low contrast areas in the picture, Ektar 35mm should resolve somewhere in between the D2X and the A900.</p> <p>Both levels of contrast coexist in pictures in most cases in real life.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 <p>In true megapixels, these are the top resolutions:<br>40D= aprox 6MP<br>D2X= aprox 7MP<br>Ektar 35mm + Coolscan= aprox 19MP<br>Velvia 6x7 + Coolscan= 90+ MP</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now