Range-rover
Mentor
Thank you for the great write up, tis very interesting on the resolution end of it, so I'll
have to work at getting a 20-24 mp digital camera now so at least I'll have a common
resolution that matches ISO 100.
Range
have to work at getting a 20-24 mp digital camera now so at least I'll have a common
resolution that matches ISO 100.
Range
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Short budget version. 
Colors.
My 16MP 500D and 12MP 5Dc outperforms in terms of resolution (MPs) and noise my 1600 DPI V500 color film scans of 135 format.
But then I look at "Ansel Adams in colors" book...
B/W.
My 120 and 135 B/W then scanned by same V500 and printed at Costco visually outperforms my b/w digital.
Even before printing, just scans...
Weird. I just wrote at another thread, how I gave film RF for young guy who could clearly see the difference in print.
I stopped watching closely Flickr groups with mixed media content.
Most of digital ones are too obvious and boring.
I personally prefer lomography to photoshop.
Colors.
My 16MP 500D and 12MP 5Dc outperforms in terms of resolution (MPs) and noise my 1600 DPI V500 color film scans of 135 format.
But then I look at "Ansel Adams in colors" book...
B/W.
My 120 and 135 B/W then scanned by same V500 and printed at Costco visually outperforms my b/w digital.
Even before printing, just scans...
Weird. I just wrote at another thread, how I gave film RF for young guy who could clearly see the difference in print.
I stopped watching closely Flickr groups with mixed media content.
Most of digital ones are too obvious and boring.
I personally prefer lomography to photoshop.
rjbuzzclick
Well-known
While I freely admit your math is beyond my capabilities, I did find one typo and thought I would point it out in case it causes any confusion: The Nyquist frequency is HALF the sampling frequency, not twice.
literiter
Well-known
Film is a marvelous medium to be sure. Permanence, dynamic range, aesthetic advantages I can't even begin to discuss.....
But the biggest thing, for me, is the ability to put some film in my Leica M2 and be completely confident I can take a picture
with that combination without dithering with menus, batteries, electronics or dust on a sensor.
I can even focus the thing all by myself!......Imagine!
But the biggest thing, for me, is the ability to put some film in my Leica M2 and be completely confident I can take a picture
with that combination without dithering with menus, batteries, electronics or dust on a sensor.
I can even focus the thing all by myself!......Imagine!
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
thegman
Mentor
To be honest, I don't know enough about the technicalities of film or digital to make a meaningful contribution to this thread (but that won't stop me), these are however interesting comparisons:
Ektar 100 in 35mm against the 21MP 5D Mk II:
http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html
Ektar seems to have just a touch more resolution looking at the chap's wooly hat, but they are close enough to be considered equivalent I think.
Then we have 4x5 and 8x10 vs. a Phase One IQ180:
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
4x5 probably has a smidge more resolution, but a lot more grainy of course.
Ektar 100 in 35mm against the 21MP 5D Mk II:
http://www.twinlenslife.com/2011/01/digital-vs-film-canon-5d-mark-ii-vs.html
Ektar seems to have just a touch more resolution looking at the chap's wooly hat, but they are close enough to be considered equivalent I think.
Then we have 4x5 and 8x10 vs. a Phase One IQ180:
http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/
4x5 probably has a smidge more resolution, but a lot more grainy of course.
gnuyork
Well-known
I shoot both digital (5DmkII and leica X1) as well as 35mm film and 4x5 film.
I was able to enlarge scans of 35mm slide film to nearly four feet wide and have a good usable print, albeit not as sharp as smaller prints, but I was surprised how well they held up.
I used the Leica M6 with a Summicron 50 and the Minolta Dimage Elite 5400 scanner.
There's no way I could do this with the 5DmkII images, or even the D800 for that matter.
I was able to enlarge scans of 35mm slide film to nearly four feet wide and have a good usable print, albeit not as sharp as smaller prints, but I was surprised how well they held up.
I used the Leica M6 with a Summicron 50 and the Minolta Dimage Elite 5400 scanner.
There's no way I could do this with the 5DmkII images, or even the D800 for that matter.
thegman
Mentor
Also, for those looking for very high resolution in B&W film, Kodak claim that BW400CN is "The world's finest-grained chromogenic film.", so presumably that includes any other C41 film like Ektar.
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw400cn/main2.jhtml
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw400cn/main2.jhtml
maddoc
... likes film again.
Theoretically very interesting but two things come to mind regarding real world application 1) (lens) sample variation 2) camera shake. While the former might not have such a big impact anymore thanks to improved manufacturing techniques the latter is still limiting achievable sharpness to a large extend in real world photography.
thegman
Mentor
No question, I've taken handheld shots at 1/250 second with leaf shutter cameras and on full res scans I can sometimes see a touch of shake.
Scrambler
Well-known
Nearly all these discussions end up talking about scans of film. Given the difference in grain structure between digital (including scanning) and film, this will always be to the detriment of film, as information will be lost in the transfer. On the other hand, if the standard was a 35mm slide produced either directly or via reproduction from a digital file, this would be to the detriment of digital.
The only "fair" test, IMHO, would be prints derived from both processes.
The only "fair" test, IMHO, would be prints derived from both processes.
IdealCamera
Established
Assumptions
Assumptions
If you read Isaac Asimov's Foundation you'll come across a certain character whose notion of science is to carefully weigh the existing literature, balance the words of the greats, and write his own opus based on that. One of the Foundation folks asks him if he's considered empirical work.
Have you considered the possibility of one's digitizing the film by taking several 36MP photos of it at whatever desired magnification, using a slide copier, and then stitching the resulting files? I feel that picture would be worth 1k words.
Assumptions
If you read Isaac Asimov's Foundation you'll come across a certain character whose notion of science is to carefully weigh the existing literature, balance the words of the greats, and write his own opus based on that. One of the Foundation folks asks him if he's considered empirical work.
Have you considered the possibility of one's digitizing the film by taking several 36MP photos of it at whatever desired magnification, using a slide copier, and then stitching the resulting files? I feel that picture would be worth 1k words.
Pioneer
Mentor
I find all these comparisons to be very interesting. I have read some very intelligent comparisons, and yours certainly fits in that category. Though my own grasp of all the technology is nowhere near the level of your own I personally see at least one issue that is always ignored in these comparisons.
First, the two are not the same. One is digital and the other is analogue. As such there is no convenient method of making any form of comparison without converting one to the other. Either the analogue image must be digitized, or the digital image must somehow be turned to analogue. Based on my limited understanding of pixels, the latter is not really possible. And the former always results in loosing some of the information contained in the film.
The second problem I have with this comes from my experience over the years with both technologies. In the early 2000s I was taking pictures with 3 megapixel digital cameras as well as with a Pentax LX and K1000 on film. Even with all the wondrous image manipulation technology available today, my old 3 megapixel images will never get any better. However, the negatives from that old Pentax K1000 can be scanned with the newest scanners and always seem to improve each time.
Everyone says that the newest digital cameras have finally exceeded the quality of film. My question though is this. What will my 2004, K1000 negatives look like when scanned in 10 years? And then how will that compare with the 36 megapixel image being captured today by the new Nikon D800?
First, the two are not the same. One is digital and the other is analogue. As such there is no convenient method of making any form of comparison without converting one to the other. Either the analogue image must be digitized, or the digital image must somehow be turned to analogue. Based on my limited understanding of pixels, the latter is not really possible. And the former always results in loosing some of the information contained in the film.
The second problem I have with this comes from my experience over the years with both technologies. In the early 2000s I was taking pictures with 3 megapixel digital cameras as well as with a Pentax LX and K1000 on film. Even with all the wondrous image manipulation technology available today, my old 3 megapixel images will never get any better. However, the negatives from that old Pentax K1000 can be scanned with the newest scanners and always seem to improve each time.
Everyone says that the newest digital cameras have finally exceeded the quality of film. My question though is this. What will my 2004, K1000 negatives look like when scanned in 10 years? And then how will that compare with the 36 megapixel image being captured today by the new Nikon D800?
leicapixie
Well-known
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138124
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138124
The OP did a wonderful job of explaining his theories.
I use film and digital.
First when i scan, either on my flat bed scanner,or have high "rez" done,
i feel it is a lousy way to look at film.
In plain language of our time "It sucks".
Digital even in low end point and shoot cameras appear sharper.
Therefor there is no need for high end cameras and sensors.
Those who "claim" making those huge enlargements, where are they stored?
Film is an archival system.
Digital is not.
Not now definitely not later.
If NASA cannot look at their older data, what chance have we?
A few weeks ago, my one drive sent all my images to Purgatory.
The year 2013. Gone.
I can look at images i shot on film going back decades.
I use digital for internet.
I am about to go back to wet darkroom.
Neither is perfect.
Film does not require upgrades in computers, software,
programs, devices every few hours..
Before you start "texting", see all your "updates".
This wheel of ever more purchasing cannot be sustained!
Hence the drop in sales of all photographic equipment.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138124
The OP did a wonderful job of explaining his theories.
I use film and digital.
First when i scan, either on my flat bed scanner,or have high "rez" done,
i feel it is a lousy way to look at film.
In plain language of our time "It sucks".
Digital even in low end point and shoot cameras appear sharper.
Therefor there is no need for high end cameras and sensors.
Those who "claim" making those huge enlargements, where are they stored?
Film is an archival system.
Digital is not.
Not now definitely not later.
If NASA cannot look at their older data, what chance have we?
A few weeks ago, my one drive sent all my images to Purgatory.
The year 2013. Gone.
I can look at images i shot on film going back decades.
I use digital for internet.
I am about to go back to wet darkroom.
Neither is perfect.
Film does not require upgrades in computers, software,
programs, devices every few hours..
Before you start "texting", see all your "updates".
This wheel of ever more purchasing cannot be sustained!
Hence the drop in sales of all photographic equipment.
tbhv55
Well-known
RichC, many thanks for posting an interesting, thoughtful, and balanced analysis. It's good to see someone looking into this, without having an axe to grind for one side or the other. Sadly, the reality (for me) is that the sheer convenience of digital wins... yes, lazy, I know.
On a more everyday level, another side of me agrees with Ansel's post (#12) i.e. that the pursuit of sharpness is something of a waste of time. In a good photograph ("good", of course, in the eye of the beholder), there's so much more to appreciate and enjoy than the technical performance of the lens/sensor/film. I've reached the point where I feel that if my attention is grabbed by the sharpness of an image, the image probably doesn't have much else to offer. Just MHO, of course.
On a more everyday level, another side of me agrees with Ansel's post (#12) i.e. that the pursuit of sharpness is something of a waste of time. In a good photograph ("good", of course, in the eye of the beholder), there's so much more to appreciate and enjoy than the technical performance of the lens/sensor/film. I've reached the point where I feel that if my attention is grabbed by the sharpness of an image, the image probably doesn't have much else to offer. Just MHO, of course.
RichC
Well-known
Just a quick response to various posts:
● My post is simply an attempt to answer the question "How many megapixels is a frame of film equal to?" It is about practical photography and affordable equipment, and what most people "into" photography such as us might use: i.e. full-frame digital SLRs and professional colour negative film such as Ektar or Portra.
● It goes without saying that fine-grained B&W film or an 80 MP digital Hasselblad will give exceptional tonality and detail - but let's stick with digital SLRs and colour negative film, if simply for the reason that this is my thread, this is the equipment I use, and I prefer colour photography!
● My post is most certainly not about whether film or digital is better - I use both, and prefer the look of film but the convenience of digital. My weapons of choice are a Mamiya 645 with Portra and a Nikon D800E - which give very similar results regarding tone and detail. (I print both up to 36 inches wide, which I feel is their absolute maximum size for pin-sharpness close up. Even at this size they are indistiguishable in sharpness and tonality - but need very careful post-processing and printing from perfect photographs. A more sensible print width for these cameras is 30 inches. Examples @ 36 inches. Note: printing is not the central concern of my post, as this has its own issues impacting image quality. Let's ignore prints in this thread.)
● There seems to be a focus on sharpness by various posters. This is irrelevant - my post is simply about comparing two mediums taken under comparable conditions with similar equipment. My calculations assume photographs taken under ideal conditions - tripod, well exposed, etc. But my argument holds even if the test photographs are hand held and have camera shake - provided both the film and digital images are equally blurred.
● In short, blurred photographs would give lower megapixel values in my calculations, but film and digital would be both lower by the same amount - so the comparable resolution of film vs digital is no different than for pin-sharp images.
● And for the sake argument, let's assume any photographs not of test charts are arresting in content, meaning and composition, with sharpness being the cherry on the cake!
● Tonal range: some dismiss cameras like the Nikon D800, saying 36 MP = bloated files with unnecessary detail. But the increased detail also increases the tonality - the D800 produces the best-quality photographs of any digital SLR, very close to low-end medium-format (various objective comparisons on the web), in large part down to its 36 MP. Current digital SLRs and colour negative film are now extremely close in tonal range. (However, colour negative film is far more forgiving than digital if over- or underexposed.)
● I understand totally the arguments about tangibility of film - though this is irrelevant to this thread.
● @ Roger Hicks. I feel you are being too dismissive, despite using the phrase "more rigorous". I have been careful to base my initial calculations on sound theory and measurements from reliable sources (tests by Kodak and DPreview using the standard resolution charts). The later calculations do use estimates, but are most certainly not "wishful thinking", and although not precise are reasonable "ball park" values. My working is clear, so if you disagree with these estimates, feel free to substitute your own values.
● Performing my own tests under rigorous conditions would be more accurate, but unless anyone finds serious flaws in the resolution data I used or in my logic, I am confident that my results are of the correct order and - more importantly - give a true comparison between film and digital of the detail in each in terms of "megapixels".
● My post is simply an attempt to answer the question "How many megapixels is a frame of film equal to?" It is about practical photography and affordable equipment, and what most people "into" photography such as us might use: i.e. full-frame digital SLRs and professional colour negative film such as Ektar or Portra.
● It goes without saying that fine-grained B&W film or an 80 MP digital Hasselblad will give exceptional tonality and detail - but let's stick with digital SLRs and colour negative film, if simply for the reason that this is my thread, this is the equipment I use, and I prefer colour photography!
● My post is most certainly not about whether film or digital is better - I use both, and prefer the look of film but the convenience of digital. My weapons of choice are a Mamiya 645 with Portra and a Nikon D800E - which give very similar results regarding tone and detail. (I print both up to 36 inches wide, which I feel is their absolute maximum size for pin-sharpness close up. Even at this size they are indistiguishable in sharpness and tonality - but need very careful post-processing and printing from perfect photographs. A more sensible print width for these cameras is 30 inches. Examples @ 36 inches. Note: printing is not the central concern of my post, as this has its own issues impacting image quality. Let's ignore prints in this thread.)
● There seems to be a focus on sharpness by various posters. This is irrelevant - my post is simply about comparing two mediums taken under comparable conditions with similar equipment. My calculations assume photographs taken under ideal conditions - tripod, well exposed, etc. But my argument holds even if the test photographs are hand held and have camera shake - provided both the film and digital images are equally blurred.
● In short, blurred photographs would give lower megapixel values in my calculations, but film and digital would be both lower by the same amount - so the comparable resolution of film vs digital is no different than for pin-sharp images.
● And for the sake argument, let's assume any photographs not of test charts are arresting in content, meaning and composition, with sharpness being the cherry on the cake!
● Tonal range: some dismiss cameras like the Nikon D800, saying 36 MP = bloated files with unnecessary detail. But the increased detail also increases the tonality - the D800 produces the best-quality photographs of any digital SLR, very close to low-end medium-format (various objective comparisons on the web), in large part down to its 36 MP. Current digital SLRs and colour negative film are now extremely close in tonal range. (However, colour negative film is far more forgiving than digital if over- or underexposed.)
● I understand totally the arguments about tangibility of film - though this is irrelevant to this thread.
● @ Roger Hicks. I feel you are being too dismissive, despite using the phrase "more rigorous". I have been careful to base my initial calculations on sound theory and measurements from reliable sources (tests by Kodak and DPreview using the standard resolution charts). The later calculations do use estimates, but are most certainly not "wishful thinking", and although not precise are reasonable "ball park" values. My working is clear, so if you disagree with these estimates, feel free to substitute your own values.
● Performing my own tests under rigorous conditions would be more accurate, but unless anyone finds serious flaws in the resolution data I used or in my logic, I am confident that my results are of the correct order and - more importantly - give a true comparison between film and digital of the detail in each in terms of "megapixels".
malcD
Well-known
8X10 digiback does not compare with 8X10 film neg. there is no theory.
except cost.
except cost.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
I think most of your logic is flawed. Some glaring mistakes you might want to look into is the role of diffraction, and calculating the differences in diffraction over different formats and even different sensors (pixel size) and how they change data.
For instance a 6x7 film with standard lens won't become diffraction limited until after ƒ22 given a 12" wide print.
So your calculations are way off when you use focal length 50-150mm and say the multiplier is 3x that's poor science there are plenty of diffraction calculators on the internet, try one.
Also you seem to forget (or be unaware) that the megapixel count of a camera is not a measure of it's resolution, that would be it's pixel density and size.
Further to that a 12mp sensor can't resolve 12mp of detail with a Bayer sensor at best you get 6mp green, 3mp Red and 3mp Blue the output being mathematically calculated from a grid sample.
Film doesn't work like that it has RGB records but has them stacked and randomised, no digital camera has that (foveon is stacked but gridded).
I don't know where you get the figure of 80% degradation with drum scans, or the idea that film needs to be scanned. If we output to print what effect does mathematical dithering have on inkjets?
So many basic errors, mis-calculations and false assumptions in your OP that really I don't know where to start.
For instance a 6x7 film with standard lens won't become diffraction limited until after ƒ22 given a 12" wide print.
So your calculations are way off when you use focal length 50-150mm and say the multiplier is 3x that's poor science there are plenty of diffraction calculators on the internet, try one.
Also you seem to forget (or be unaware) that the megapixel count of a camera is not a measure of it's resolution, that would be it's pixel density and size.
Further to that a 12mp sensor can't resolve 12mp of detail with a Bayer sensor at best you get 6mp green, 3mp Red and 3mp Blue the output being mathematically calculated from a grid sample.
Film doesn't work like that it has RGB records but has them stacked and randomised, no digital camera has that (foveon is stacked but gridded).
I don't know where you get the figure of 80% degradation with drum scans, or the idea that film needs to be scanned. If we output to print what effect does mathematical dithering have on inkjets?
So many basic errors, mis-calculations and false assumptions in your OP that really I don't know where to start.
icebear
Mentor
The only relevant questions IMHO are :
For an amateur :
Does your equipment limit your abilities to take the images you want? Are you sure you already (and consistently) max out the IQ your equipment is capable of ?
For the pro:
Does you client pay for your work and do you get follow-up jobs?
For an amateur :
Does your equipment limit your abilities to take the images you want? Are you sure you already (and consistently) max out the IQ your equipment is capable of ?
For the pro:
Does you client pay for your work and do you get follow-up jobs?
Bille
Well-known
Not sure if I understand this post correctly...
There is a theoretical advantage in resolution of ISO100 35mm film over a 21MP full frame digital sensor. This will turn into a real world advantage only if the film camera is perfectly calibrated, shot from a tripod with a good lens stopped down, only with access to a high end drum scanner in post processing.
Wouldn´t it be easier to just chose a D800E or Sony A7R if your photography requires max resolution? (Not even talking about medium format digital...)
By the way, what happens at ISO 200?
There is a theoretical advantage in resolution of ISO100 35mm film over a 21MP full frame digital sensor. This will turn into a real world advantage only if the film camera is perfectly calibrated, shot from a tripod with a good lens stopped down, only with access to a high end drum scanner in post processing.
Wouldn´t it be easier to just chose a D800E or Sony A7R if your photography requires max resolution? (Not even talking about medium format digital...)
By the way, what happens at ISO 200?