How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality

Malcolm Smith wrote:
> I would be intereested in you pointing me to something less stale!
> Presumably to be stale you must have seen soemthing more recent to
> make Nornam Koran article stale.
>
> Malcolm

Malcolm,

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

The top of the page indicates that the last update was September 17, 2005,
and that most of the text was written in 2002 and 2003. Six years is a
long time in digital photography. There are considerably more recent
cameras and lenses than the article mentions, reflecting different takes
on the strength of anti-aliasing filters, for example, and I suspect that
the Foveon was seen in a more favourable light then than now. The growth
of pixel count in small-sensor cameras has been much greater than the
article suggests.

More recent articles include those by Roger Clark and Emil Martinec.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ensor_analysis

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/...ise/index.html

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor

I am familar with Roger Clarks work and have fount it very interesting and
useful. I hadn't cone across Martinec but have printed out his paper and
will read it tonight. I quoted the Norman Koran work as directly answering
the OP's question of when digital equals film (if I have quoted correctly)
and I havn't seen anything in Rogers work before exactly on this topic.

I am putting together some of my ideas on sharpening which I should get on
my web site in a few weeks and find this type of web information very useful
(particularly Roger Clarks writing on visual acuity) and interesting.

All the best
Malcolm

Malcolm Smith

On May 29, 10:51 am, a...@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) wrote:
> How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by
> 10" print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera
> (or for that matter a larger format) shooting a top of the run film, such
> as a major brand 100-125 ASA color (or black and white) film.
>
> The bottom line, if I replace a film camera with a digital, and want the
> same quality enlargements, am I talking about the current models now
> available (costing perhaps $500 to a bit over $1000), typically with
> roughly 10 MP, or am I talking about something not designed for other than
> professional use such as the $8000 Canon with 21 mp, or perhpas something
> yet to be invented.


One of the interesting things about a digital image, is that they
enlarge better than film. Where with film you may say that from a 35mm
frame with a good enlarging lens 11x14 to 16x20 were considered max
enlargements. I have seen many lousy 16x20 enlargements from film, not
always the fault of film, bad lenses and bad technique also enter into
the equation. Digital images even scanned film images enlarge better
than traditional projection enlargement. You see 8mp digital images
going out to acceptable 20x30 enlargements, enlarge 8 or 10mp to 16x20
and you have a very nice image.
It has been said here that trying to compare film to mp is like
comparing aplles to oranges, this is very true.

Tom

tomm42

On May 29, 9:51 am, a...@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) wrote:
> How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by
> 10" print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera
> (or for that matter a larger format) shooting a top of the run film, such
> as a major brand 100-125 ASA color (or black and white) film.
>
> The bottom line, if I replace a film camera with a digital, and want the
> same quality enlargements, am I talking about the current models now
> available (costing perhaps $500 to a bit over $1000), typically with
> roughly 10 MP, or am I talking about something not designed for other than
> professional use such as the $8000 Canon with 21 mp, or perhpas something
> yet to be invented.

Depends on WHICH 35mm film, and how it is processed. The resolution
of films varies tremendously. Since the number of "pixels" in an
image goes as the square of the linear resolution, that is a BIG
variation in the number of pixels.

Don Stauffer in Minnesota

On Sat, 31 May 2008 00:10:23 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

> "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>>
>> As to the original question, here's my opinion, assuming a reasonable
>> sized sensor...
>>
>> Normal 100-200 print film - 6-8 Mp
>> Pro quality 100-160 print film - 8-12 Mp
>> Slide film* (Velvia, Kchrome) - 12-24 Mp
>
> People who have actually looked, find that 12.7MP (i.e. the 5D) looks
> very similar to _645_ slide film, and 24x36mm is nowhere close to
> either.
>
> http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projec...sus%20Digital%
20Shootout%20(Hasselblad,%2035mm,%20Canon%205D).ht m
>
> http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/

Point of Order: The links you site as well as all the others sited in
this thread, and all those I've read, but not mentioned here, do NOT
truly compare digital to film. Instead they compare digital to digitally
scanned film, and therein lies the caveat. Any advantages film might or
does have would be negated either partly or wholly by the scanning
process. In reality, you are comparing a digital "original" to a copy of
an original. Is that an equitable comparison? I think not.

A true test of digital vs film would be direct out of the camera to
photographic emulsion 20X prints with only overall color balance and
density corrections permitted, and only during the printing process;
then second 20X prints where any manner of manipulation is permitted to
make the best possible prints.

I have never found such a test in all my searches: The film is always
scanned.

Maybe, I'll do it myself. I have a friend who has a Canon 5D. Now all I
need to do is find someone with a Canon film camera, so the same lens can
be used. Or I could just use my 30 year old, all manual Nikons for the
film part, but that might bias the test toward film due to the vast
superiority of old manual Nikkors over today's plastic, loosie-goosie AF
lenses.

Stef

Stefan Patric

On May 30, 10:40*pm, u...@domain.invalid wrote:
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> > As to the original question, here's my opinion, assuming a reasonable
> > sized sensor...
>
> > Normal 100-200 print film - 6-8 Mp
>
> This I believe

Good!

> > Pro quality 100-160 print film - 8-12 Mp
>
> What do you mean by this? I have always felt, and felt strongly, that
> "pro" film was always inferior to the latest generation "drugstore" film,
> simply because the latter was always a generation later.

I'm referring to those films specifically for professional use, eg NPS/
NPH/Reala and Kodak Supra, maybe even Portra. Ie, the ones at the top
of this table...
http://cacreeks.com/films.htm

I admit to having not done scientifically valid direct comparisons of
high grade scans of those films with digital images, but my impression
of what could be done with those films from my wedding and portrait
shooting days back before digital, and my experience since then with a
variety of digital formats suggests that it would need a bit more than
6-8 MP to match the enlargability. But note that I am ONLY referring
to absolute resolution here - NOT dynamic range, etc.

> I will admit that Ektar 25 was very special indeed, and under the
> absolute best conditions just might beat an 8 MP digital
> in certain ways, especially ultimate resolution limit at
> low MTF readings.

As, imo, would Fuji NPS/NPH and my favorite 'odd' print film, the
remarkable Konica Impresa 50.
I miss it almost as much as K25..

> > Slide film* (Velvia, Kchrome) - 12-24 Mp
>
> This I disagree strongly. The "impression" of superiority here was always
> the exceptionally high contrast of slide film. The down side was
> hopelessly bad dynamic range.

?? But I am specifically referring to resolution only here. I
addressed the topic of dynamic range elsewhere in that post, and of
course you are right that most transparency film is contrasty and has
very limited drange.

A nailed K25/Velvia slide (with good technique) will clearly outrun an
8Mp image in terms of detail/resolution.
Here, the much quoted Roger Clark site indicates he puts Vevlia at
between 10 and 16 Mp.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html

But in many ways we are comparing apples and bananas, so your point is
taken.

mark.thomas.7@gmail.com

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Mark Thomas" <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>> As to the original question, here's my opinion, assuming a reasonable
>> sized sensor...
>>
>> Normal 100-200 print film - 6-8 Mp
>> Pro quality 100-160 print film - 8-12 Mp
>> Slide film* (Velvia, Kchrome) - 12-24 Mp
>
> People who have actually looked

David, there is a rather unkind implication in that (and one I dispute,
but who would believe anything written on usenet anyway..)

> find that 12.7MP (i.e. the 5D) looks very
> similar to _645_ slide film, and 24x36mm is nowhere close to either.

Huh? I don't follow this - you refer to a 5D (which is full frame
24x36) and 645, and then say 24x36 is "nowhere close to either"? I
presume you mean 35mm film is nowhere close?

Yes, the 5D is arguably a bit beyond all 35mm films, but "nowhere
close"?? It depends on what films and under what shooting conditions,
and this is just one full-frame camera - not exactly representative of
all 12Mp cameras. I *didn't* nominate particular selected cameras nor
did I or the OP specify full-frame. If you are going to do that, the
comparisons change.

Also, I was using ball park figures in regard to resolution only,
because I referred to other issues like d-range and noise/grain
elsewhere in my post (the bits you cut out). Saying it "looks very
similar" is obviously taking all that other stuff into account.

> http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projec...anon%205D).htm

As above, this is a full-frame camera. Where are the samples from other
12Mp cameras?

> http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/

And again, another full-frame. I agree, full-frames are in the league
of medium format, but not all cameras are full-frame...

At Roger Clark's site, he agrees that Velvia needs 10-16 Mp for a rough
resolution equivalence, very much in line with what I posted. I defer
to your extensive experience in these matters and am totally in
agreement with almost everything you post, but I think moving the
discussion so that it only includes full-frame is a bit odd!


mt

Mark Thomas

On May 29, 4:51*am, a...@loc.gov (Aaron Kuperman) wrote:
> How many megapixels does a digital camera need to produce an 8" by
> 10" print equivalent in quality to what one would get from a 35 mm camera
> (or for that matter a larger format) shooting a top of the run film, such
> as a major brand 100-125 ASA color (or black and white) film.
>
> The bottom line, if I replace a film camera with a digital, and want the
> same quality enlargements, am I talking about the current models now
> available (costing perhaps $500 to a bit over $1000), typically with
> roughly 10 MP, or am I talking about something not designed for other than
> professional use such as the $8000 Canon with 21 mp, or perhpas something
> yet to be invented.

Oh good, a digital vs film thread, I was getting really tired of
nothing but Bret vs D-Mac threads.

If an 8x10 in print is as large as you are printing then there is a
wide range of digital cameras that will give you that.

There are lots of samples from digital cameras at review sites, you
can print one of these and see what you think.

For me once I got an 8MP digital I gave up on film, I could get a bit
more detail from film, but only if the detail was very high contrast,
prints taken with a 8MP DSLR look sharper to my eye then of the same
scene taken with a film SLR.

Scott

Scott W

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote in
message news:...
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> ?? But I am specifically referring to resolution only here. I
>> addressed the topic of dynamic range elsewhere in that post, and of
>> course you are right that most transparency film is contrasty and has
>> very limited drange.
>>
>> A nailed K25/Velvia slide (with good technique) will clearly outrun an
>> 8Mp image in terms of detail/resolution.
>> Here, the much quoted Roger Clark site indicates he puts Vevlia at
>> between 10 and 16 Mp.
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta....summary1.html
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>> That's not been my experience.
>
> Having been alerted to this thread (I haven't been reading this
> newsgroup), I see my work is being misrepresented.
>
> Please read the above web page, not just stopping after looking at Figure
> 1.
> Spatial resolution is only one component of image quality.
> Signal-to-noise ratio is important and is noted in the figure
> caption to figure 1.
>
> Move further down the page to the Apparent Image Quality (AIQ) section.
> Figure 3 shows that the 5D has similar image quality to 6x7 cm
> fine-grained film, and well above the 35mm fine grained film. These
> values come from measured film and digital properties, both resolution
> and noise. So, it is not surprising that it matches David's and
> other's objective experience.
>
> Regarding dynamic range and exposure latitude, "film people" commonly
> confuse digital's dynamic range because it exposes differently.
> This is a partially complete page that shows some differences:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ure_latitude-1
> (For the film people out there, I still shoot film, mainly 4x5.)
> While print film has great headroom, it falls apart at the low end,
> where digital still goes strong. Overall, digital cameras with
> large pixels have huge dynamic range, unmatched by print film, but
> small pixel P&S cameras come up way short.
>
> Roger Clark

thanks for that Roger
I can see it is much more complicated than just numbers in a graph as some
would think (Myself included before I joined these groups)

--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?

Atheist Chaplain

frederick wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> Of course, getting _sharp_ 12.7MP images from the 5D is like falling
>> off a log (at 35mm and longer; corners on superwides are a problem,
>> sigh), but it may be a bit harder to get sharp images on 12MP APS-C
>> cameras, and nearly impossible with 12MP P&S cameras...
>>
> I'm not sure - 5d vs APS-C. I've been using both (5d and D300). My
> comparison of 17-40l @ 18mm vs Sigma 10-20 @ 12mm, the D300/10-20 won
> for corner performance, edge performance similar.

Frederick, how does low light/noise performance compare? Dynamic range
is another area I'd expect full frame to excel with.

> In that case perhaps
> enhanced by auto CA correction - so that's a possibility for improving
> edge performance on Fx too. The Sigma lens is 1/2 the price of the
> 17-40. The 17-40 was certainly sharp enough to bring up moire centre
> frame - similar to my old D70. In general though, at 19x13", there's no
> significant difference, D300/5d.
> Edge performance at ultra-wide (< 20mm) f/l is IMO an overrated thing.
> Composition usually means that the 4 corners are at vastly different
> focus distances - way outside even the huge DOF stopped down. "Normal"
> wide angle (say ~ 28mm+ ) edge performance can be more critical. YMMV.


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman