«

Rookie.
Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is approximately
true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?

Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?

bye

Atlas wrote:

> Rookie.
> Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
> gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
> Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
> silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is approximately
> true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?
>
> Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?
>
> bye
>
>

Google away.

In article <q9Sib.52995$>,
"Alan Browne" <"Alan Browne"@videotron.canospam> wrote:

> Atlas wrote:
>
> > Rookie.
> > Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
> > gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
> > Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
> > silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is approximately
> > true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?
> >
> > Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?
> >
> > bye
> >
> >
>
> Google away.
>

The Kodak DCS 14n has a full frame sensor (CMOS) of 14 megapixels.
((Nikon mt.)

The Canon 1Ds, or is it D1s has a full frame sensor (CMOS) of 11
megapixels.

The discontinued Contax digital SLR had a full frame sensor of 6
megapixels.

Gene McCluney

There is no simple way to calculate this. Theoretically a 35mm film original
can hold in excess of 50mps of usable information. However that does not
necessarily translate into usable superior image quality if output quality
is judged by what appears on a monitor or an inkjet/dye-sub print. The 35mm
original must be transformed into digital via a scanner, a machine with its
own set of technical foibles and limitations. For practical purposes even a
3mp digital sensor can yield an 8x10 print that visually may be judged the
equal or superior of a 2400dpi 35mm scan. Many cameraholics who have
invested heavily in this first wave of high end digital cameras tumpet the
superiority of their 5 and 6 mp sensors to 35mm film. From a technical
standpoint this is lunatic self-delusion (and ignores the digital
manipulation that is built into their systems to create a useful image from
the noise that comes off the camera sensor), but from an aesthetic
standpoint it is a valid subjective judgement.

"bmoag" <> wrote:

> There is no simple way to calculate this. Theoretically a 35mm film
original
> can hold in excess of 50mps of usable information. However that does not
> necessarily translate into usable superior image quality if output quality
> is judged by what appears on a monitor or an inkjet/dye-sub print. The
35mm
> original must be transformed into digital via a scanner, a machine with
its
> own set of technical foibles and limitations. For practical purposes even
a
> 3mp digital sensor can yield an 8x10 print that visually may be judged the
> equal or superior of a 2400dpi 35mm scan. Many cameraholics who have
> invested heavily in this first wave of high end digital cameras tumpet the
> superiority of their 5 and 6 mp sensors to 35mm film. From a technical
> standpoint this is lunatic self-delusion (and ignores the digital
> manipulation that is built into their systems to create a useful image
from
> the noise that comes off the camera sensor), but from an aesthetic
> standpoint it is a valid subjective judgement.

Actually, it's the technical claim that is so clearly at odds with objective
reality that's the lunacy...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Roger Clark has a very good article on this. His web site is just beautiful
and informational. Check it out

http://www.clarkvision.com

"Atlas" <> wrote in message
news:NGRib.281067$...
> Rookie.
> Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
> gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
> Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
> silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is
approximately
> true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?
>
> Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?
>
> bye
>
>

In article <NGRib.281067$>, atlaspeak@my-
deja.com says...
> Rookie.
> Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
> gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
> Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
> silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is approximately
> true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?

There is lots of disagreement about this, but a good rule of thumb is
that you need a digital camera with around 9 MP to have the same
resolution as film (shot with a sharp lens).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html

I think you can use 5-50 mp right now. Different film etc make a big
difference.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


"Atlas" <> wrote in message
news:NGRib.281067$...
> Rookie.
> Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
> gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
> Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
> silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is
approximately
> true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?
>
> Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?
>
> bye
>
>

In article <B3Zib.32389$>, sligojoeSPAM2
@hotmail.com says...
> I think you can use 5-50 mp right now. Different film etc make a big
> difference.

The limitation is not the film. It's the lens (and the camera shake,
imperfect focusing etc.).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html

I performed my own test. It does not take grain, color and some other image
quality issues into consideration, just resolution.
http://home.att.net/~jriegle/resolution.htm
John



"Atlas" <> wrote in message
news:NGRib.281067$...
> Rookie.
> Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
> gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
> Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
> silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is
approximately
> true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?
>
> Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?
>
> bye
>
>