Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 11MP digital or medium format film?

Reply
Thread Tools

11MP digital or medium format film?

 
 
Crownfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2004
the preddiot prattled:


> The SD10 has 10.3M 1/3rd luminance readings for about $7000 less.
> More importantly it uses all of them, since it has 25% more RGB
> triples than the old $8000 1Ds.


but the sd10 is really useless,
because it has only 3 mp sensors distributed spatially in the image.
thats a whopping ** 72% ** less.

3 mp is not a pro camera,
its a mini consumer toy.


>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Summitar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2004
>George Preddy (Steve Giovanella) wrote:

>The SD10 has 10.3M 1/3rd luminance readings for about $7000 less.
>More importantly it uses all of them, since it has 25% more RGB
>triples than the old $8000 1Ds.



Shut up, Preddy.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gadgets
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2004
I once heard Kodachrome 25, 35mm quoted as equivalent to 21 million pixels
as far as resolving fine detail. Colour accuracy is a whole different
field...

If you've seen a poster sized Velvia print on a high gloss positive paper,
you'd see why high end work is still film... digital has many strengths, but
large output isn't one of them!

Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roland Karlsson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2004
"Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus...com> wrote in
news:413aca86$(E-Mail Removed):

> I once heard Kodachrome 25, 35mm quoted as equivalent to 21 million
> pixels as far as resolving fine detail. Colour accuracy is a whole
> different field...


Yes, you need to scan at 20 Mpixels or so to catch everything in
a K25, but ... that does nort mean that it is equal to 20 Mpixels.
Those pixels are extremely low quality. I think you shall make a
realty check. Look at some high quality pixels and then at the
pixels that a 20 Mpixel scan of K25 produces. It is a huge difference.

> If you've seen a poster sized Velvia print on a high gloss positive
> paper, you'd see why high end work is still film... digital has many
> strengths, but large output isn't one of them!


If a poster from a 35 mm Velvia looks good is it because it is a
stunning picture and you think that film noise is beautiful. It is
actually - and that is the main strength of film - beautiful noise.

BTW - a poster from 35 mm film is scaled 25-50 times or so. You
cannot scale up film that much without seeing the the noise and/or
get non optimal sharpness.


/Roland
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2004

"Roland Karlsson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus...com> wrote:
>
> > I once heard Kodachrome 25, 35mm quoted as equivalent to 21 million
> > pixels as far as resolving fine detail. Colour accuracy is a whole
> > different field...

>
> Yes, you need to scan at 20 Mpixels or so to catch everything in
> a K25, but ... that does nort mean that it is equal to 20 Mpixels.
> Those pixels are extremely low quality. I think you shall make a
> realty check. Look at some high quality pixels and then at the
> pixels that a 20 Mpixel scan of K25 produces. It is a huge difference.


Really. The sensible pages I've seen call 35mm film as being around 8MP.
I've just started playing with a 300D, and one stupid snapshot, a mere JPEG
with blown highlights, has some of the most beautiful pixels I've ever seen.
I usually downsample my film scans to 1/3 the original pixel count (to
create files that look very good printed at 300 dpi), but even at that size
(2400 dpi), I've never seen pixels as clear and clean. (2400 dpi from 645 is
19MP, 12 x 17 @ 300 dpi.)

What's even more hilarious is the 35mm film types squawk about K25 and Ektar
25 and Tech Pan, all of which have been discontinued. They talk about image
quality, but they refused to buy enough high-res film to make the stuff
commercially viable. To the point that there are no high-res films being
manufactured today. None. Zilch. Zero. Sheesh.

> > If you've seen a poster sized Velvia print on a high gloss positive
> > paper, you'd see why high end work is still film... digital has many
> > strengths, but large output isn't one of them!

>
> If a poster from a 35 mm Velvia looks good is it because it is a
> stunning picture and you think that film noise is beautiful. It is
> actually - and that is the main strength of film - beautiful noise.


Grain noise looks gross to me. I think it's just that most people became
used to it that some people think it looks good.

However, posters from 4x5 Velvia do look good. If you can stand the
over-the-top reds and generally dizzy color rendition.

> BTW - a poster from 35 mm film is scaled 25-50 times or so. You
> cannot scale up film that much without seeing the the noise and/or
> get non optimal sharpness.


Really. To get back to the subject, from playing with downloaded 1Ds
samples, it looks as though I'm getting slightly more detail per frame from
645 + Nikon 8000. But not a lot. And scanning's a pain.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
Darrell Larose
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2004
"Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus...com> wrote in message
news:413aca86$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I once heard Kodachrome 25, 35mm quoted as equivalent to 21 million pixels
> as far as resolving fine detail. Colour accuracy is a whole different
> field...
>
> If you've seen a poster sized Velvia print on a high gloss positive paper,
> you'd see why high end work is still film... digital has many strengths,

but
> large output isn't one of them!
>

Kodachrome isn't a really super fine grain, or high resolution film. Fuji
Astia is one of the highest resolution "regular" films. The specs say 150
lpmm. Many however will do the math of 150x24 and 150 x36 and come up with
(3600x5400 lines) and get 19,440,000. But a grid isn't a pixel, besides many
lenses don't resolve that high. So I would cut that by 50% so you end up
with only around 9.7 Megapixels. So a sharp Astia slide perfectly exposed
will edge out a digital image in their own native formats. Figure most
regular films are lower resolution than Astia (including Velvia) you would
end up with 6 to 8 Megapixels, assuming a lens that can resolve 92 lpmm on
film... your milage may vary! Scanning a film means you are comparing dSLR
with a scanner, and there will be some losses.

Darrell Larose
Pentax *istD & DA 14mm f:2.8
Pentax LX


 
Reply With Quote
 
Darrell Larose
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2004

"David J. Littleboy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:cherrr$gdb$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Roland Karlsson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus...com> wrote:
> >
> > > I once heard Kodachrome 25, 35mm quoted as equivalent to 21 million
> > > pixels as far as resolving fine detail. Colour accuracy is a whole
> > > different field...

> >
> > Yes, you need to scan at 20 Mpixels or so to catch everything in
> > a K25, but ... that does nort mean that it is equal to 20 Mpixels.
> > Those pixels are extremely low quality. I think you shall make a
> > realty check. Look at some high quality pixels and then at the
> > pixels that a 20 Mpixel scan of K25 produces. It is a huge difference.

>
> Really. The sensible pages I've seen call 35mm film as being around 8MP.
> I've just started playing with a 300D, and one stupid snapshot, a mere

JPEG
> with blown highlights, has some of the most beautiful pixels I've ever

seen.
> I usually downsample my film scans to 1/3 the original pixel count (to
> create files that look very good printed at 300 dpi), but even at that

size
> (2400 dpi), I've never seen pixels as clear and clean. (2400 dpi from 645

is
> 19MP, 12 x 17 @ 300 dpi.)
>
> What's even more hilarious is the 35mm film types squawk about K25 and

Ektar
> 25 and Tech Pan, all of which have been discontinued. They talk about

image
> quality, but they refused to buy enough high-res film to make the stuff
> commercially viable. To the point that there are no high-res films being
> manufactured today. None. Zilch. Zero. Sheesh.
>
> > > If you've seen a poster sized Velvia print on a high gloss positive
> > > paper, you'd see why high end work is still film... digital has many
> > > strengths, but large output isn't one of them!

> >
> > If a poster from a 35 mm Velvia looks good is it because it is a
> > stunning picture and you think that film noise is beautiful. It is
> > actually - and that is the main strength of film - beautiful noise.

>
> Grain noise looks gross to me. I think it's just that most people became
> used to it that some people think it looks good.
>
> However, posters from 4x5 Velvia do look good. If you can stand the
> over-the-top reds and generally dizzy color rendition.
>
> > BTW - a poster from 35 mm film is scaled 25-50 times or so. You
> > cannot scale up film that much without seeing the the noise and/or
> > get non optimal sharpness.

>
> Really. To get back to the subject, from playing with downloaded 1Ds
> samples, it looks as though I'm getting slightly more detail per frame

from
> 645 + Nikon 8000. But not a lot. And scanning's a pain.
>
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>

Kodachrome isn't a really super fine grain, or high resolution film. Fuji
Astia is one of the highest resolution "regular" films. The specs say 150
lpmm. Many however will do the math of 150x24 and 150 x36 and come up with
(3600x5400 lines) and get 19,440,000. But a grid isn't a pixel, besides many
lenses don't resolve that high. So I would cut that by 50% so you end up
with only around 9.7 Megapixels. So a sharp Astia slide perfectly exposed
will edge out a digital image in their own native formats. Figure most
regular films are lower resolution than Astia (including Velvia) you would
end up with 6 to 8 Megapixels, assuming a lens that can resolve 92 lpmm on
film... your milage may vary! Scanning a film means you are comparing dSLR
with a scanner, and there will be some losses.

So David is correct, IMHO resolution numbers of the film is useless, as the
lens resolution and camera/subject motion will effect the end result. I
recall seeing the resolution figures of K64 vs. K64. They were the same. K25
has slightly finer grain 9-11 RMS vs. 10-12 RMS. The only shortcoming I have
found in my dSLR is projecting, a well exposed chrome on a screen is still a
delight, the "digital projectors" still have a Power Point reality, and a
digital photo doesn't look as good projected in comparison.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The 11MP monochrome, 2.7MP color, $8000 Canon 1Ds Georgette Preddy Digital Photography 24 05-29-2004 10:01 PM
Been hearing and reading alot about digital being the death of Medium Format.. nonamegiven Digital Photography 7 11-18-2003 07:39 AM
What requirements would force you to go to 11MP from a 6MP DSLR ? Al Dykes Digital Photography 13 10-03-2003 04:09 AM
35mm vs medium format vs digital cameras The LoxFather Digital Photography 39 08-31-2003 04:52 AM
Re: 35mm vs medium format vs digital cameras HRosita Digital Photography 0 08-10-2003 01:15 AM



Advertisments