How many megapixcels equivalent to 35 mm in quality

In article <>,
"David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:

> In real life, most people who acquired a 6MP dSLR never shot 35mm again, and
> people who acquired a 12.7MP dSLR never shot 645 again.

David-

The cross-over point for me was one megapixel. After that, the only
reason I shot 35mm was because I needed the longer lens (500mm f/8 AF
mirror) for Space Shuttle launches. Now that I have the Sony A100, I
can use that lens digitally. I live about 15 miles from the launch
site, and have captured tiny images of the booster rockets flying away
from the shuttle about 80 miles down range.

I switched because it gave me the capability of processing my own images
digitally. It was NOT because digital images were better than film
images, although that may be true for the A100 vs 35mm Kodacolor 400!

Fred

Fred McKenzie

On Jun 9, 9:29*pm, Fred McKenzie <fm...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <2oWdncoAte0_OtDVnZ2dnUVZ_tajn...@giganews.com>,
> *"David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> > In real life, most people who acquired a 6MP dSLR never shot 35mm again, and
> > people who acquired a 12.7MP dSLR never shot 645 again.
>
> David-
>
> The cross-over point for me was one megapixel. *After that, the only
> reason I shot 35mm was because I needed the longer lens (500mm f/8 AF
> mirror) for Space Shuttle launches. *Now that I have the Sony A100, I
> can use that lens digitally. *I live about 15 miles from the launch
> site, and have captured tiny images of the booster rockets flying away
> from the shuttle about 80 miles down range.
>
> I switched because it gave me the capability of processing my own images
> digitally. *It was NOT because digital images were better than film
> images, although that may be true for the A100 vs 35mm Kodacolor 400!

My use of 35mm film took a big dip when I got a 1 MP camera, but 35mm
film could beat it for image quality ease. Once I got my 3.2 MP
digital my 4x6 prints from it looked far better then my 4x6 inch
prints from my film camera, 35mm film could still capture more
detail. But at a 4x6 inch print 3.2 MP is more then enough resolution
and the fact that I could control the print gave me far better
prints. Mini-labs could turn out prints from 35mm film that looked
like they were taken with a 640x480 camera.

Once I had a 8MP camera it was game over for 35mm for me. I did some
tests and found that film could still capture just a bit more detail,
but when comparing prints the print from digital looked sharper.
Whereas 35mm film can capture finer detail it can only do so with very
high contrast detail, like test charts. For real world scenes digital
seems far better at capturing subtle detail. Just because you might
need say 12MP to capture everything that is on film in no way means
that you need a 12MP digital camera to match the image quality of
film.


Scott

Scott W

Ï "David J. Littleboy" <> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news: ...
>
> "Fred McKenzie" <> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Whether the "real" number is 18mp or 24mp or 36mp depends on the film in
>> question.
>
> People who have tried comparing the 12.7MP 5D to the bettter modern slide
> films in 645 by actually looking at the prints, find that 645 and 12.7MP
> are, for practical photographic purposes, very similar systems. And that
> both are significantly better than 35mm for 11x14 and larger prints.
>
> http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projec...anon%205D).htm
>
> http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/
>
> There is, of course, the squawk from the film nuts that "scanning doesn't
> get all the information from the film", and it doesn't. But this is merely
> grasping at straws, since the amount of degradation is tiny compared to
> the difference in formats.
>
> In real life, most people who acquired a 6MP dSLR never shot 35mm again,
> and people who acquired a 12.7MP dSLR never shot 645 again.
>
So, it's digital compact->35 mm compact, dSLR->35 mm SLR, FF dSLR->film
medium format.



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

Tzortzakakis Dimitrios

In article <g2mag5$dmb$>,
"Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <> wrote:

> So, it's digital compact->35 mm compact, dSLR->35 mm SLR, FF dSLR->film
> medium format.

I find it interesting that we have gotten past the discussion of APS
being as good as Full Frame, and moved on to claiming that Full Frame is
as good as 645!

The fact remains that a larger sensor (or film format) requires less
enlargement for a given print size. Less enlargement means any defect,
whether from grain, noise, pixelization or lens imperfections, has less
of an effect on the image. For that reason, there will always be an
aspect to the 645 format that is better than the 35mm "full frame"
format.

Someday we might be discussing the relationship between 645 format and
6X7. Unfortunately it requires large, heavy bodies and lenses. Maybe
Olympus was right!

Fred

Fred McKenzie

Stefan Patric <> writes:

>This thread has never been about whether digital is better than film,
>scanned or not, only about establishing a fair test to find equivalence
>one to the other.

But what does "equivalence" mean in this case? The film and digital
camera images will not be identical, no matter what resolution the
digital image, because their MTF curves have different shapes. The
digital image will preserve higher contrast at low and moderate spatial
frequencies compared to the film, while the film is likely to resolve
more line pairs per mm, at least compared to 6-8 MP DSLRs. For some
subjects, the higher contrast at lower frequency will look subjectively
better, for other subjects the film may contain more visible detail.

You could objectively determine how many pixels are necessary to have
the same resolution limit as a given film, but that's far more pixels
than are needed to make the digital image look better most of the
time. So most people would not call that "equivalence".

What do you mean by the word?

>The object is to establish an equitable testing method, and not have a
>work flow that will give an unfair advantage to either media.

So how will you create an equitable measure of "equivalent quality"?
Without one, you can't have an equitable test.

>We are not determining the ultimate capability of each media, only a
>simple equivalency test: how many megapixels = film? Or, regarding my
>test: Is a 12MP Canon 5D better, equal or inferior to 100 speed 35mm
>color print film? If the 5D is so superior as you say, it should be
>readily apparent in the prints, even if printed right out the cameras.

Dave

Dave Martindale

On Jun 7, 3:02*pm, Stefan Patric <n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:39:32 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:
> > "Stefan Patric" <n...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>
> >>> No caveat required. People who have compared the wet projection prints
> >>> they've made to prints made from scans find that scanning makes as
> >>> good or better prints. Partly because the projection system itself
> >>> degrades the image, but mostly because the last generation of scanners
> >>> (Nikon 5000, Nikon 9000) were quite good.
>
> >> You missed the point:
>
> > No. I was responding to the claim that scanning degrades image quality
> > when making prints from film. This claim is somewhere between being
> > simply wrong and being so small a difference as to be completely
> > irrelevant. It's a straw that fans of 35mm film love to grasp at.
>
> The actual scanning process does degrade the film image, usually an
> increasing of contrast and "softening" of detail, particularly very fine
> detail. *It's a optical process after all. *You're copying an original.. *
> And like all copying there are consequences. *Post work can mostly
> correct, from a practical, real world stand point, those problems, if the
> scan is of a high enough resolution.
>
> >>The question is how many megapixels (effective,
> >> that is) does it take to be equivalent to film.
>
> > It's been answered. Years ago. The answer is 6 to 8. See the Normal
> > Koren references.
>
> Not really. *All Koren's tests as well as those done by others do their
> evaluations and reach their conclusions from SCANNED film. *It does not
> matter whether scanning produces better prints from film or not. *To
> reach an actual equivalence answer--megapixels to film--evaluation prints
> must be made directly from each. *Scanning film and doing post on it
> would skew the results. *This is not photography, but the scientific
> method at work.
>
> > My point here is exactly one. The claim that 35mm is equivalent to 12MP
> > is off the wall.
>
> I have a friend, who's retired from 30+ years in the commercial printing
> industry--4-color printing press, etc. not photographic--and has been a
> freelance photographer all that as well. *His learned opinion based on 3
> decades of practical experience is that you need a full 35mm frame,
> digital camera in the 18 to 20 MP range to equal professionally produced
> 35mm chromes.
>
> > I'd love to be wrong here: I'd much prefer to use a Conax G, the 21mm
> > and 35mm lenses (or even better, the new Zeiss Ikon), and a Nikon 5000
> > than the 5D. But 35mm just doesn't cut it, and the 5D does, for the size
> > prints I want to make.
>
> This thread has never been about whether digital is better than film,
> scanned or not, only about establishing a fair test to find equivalence
> one to the other.
>
> > I've always found that 6x6 or 645 is a lot better than 35mm. This was
> > true for the 11x14 B&W darkroom work I did years ago and remains true
> > for the scan to Epson 2400 12x18s I do today. This isn't really
> > arguable, unless one doesn't really understand or care about print
> > quality.
>
> Not really at question.
>
> > If I look at 12x18 prints made from the 5D, they're in the 645 class,
> > not the 35mm class.
>
> Perhaps my test using my testing method will reach the same conclusion. *
> Perhaps not. *Since no one has actually done the test I've proposed.
>
> > There is a large, qualitative difference between 35mm film and the 5D.
> > And it simply doesn't matter what technology you use to produce your
> > prints from the 35mm film.
>
> Same as above.
>
> >> *To answer this question,
> >> one must compare film prints directly, warts and all, with digital
> >> prints, preferably produced from the file directly out of the camera,
> >> no post permitted.
>
> > The "no post permitted" bit is, I think, very wrong. The object is to
> > make as good looking prints from one's files as possible, and that's
> > what one should compare. Film types do a lot of "post", too. High
> > accutance developers do sharpening chemically (check the MTF curves for
> > Velvia). And any competent darkroom worker does dodging and burning to
> > get the shadows and highlights into sensible ranges on the paper, and
> > selects an appropriate contrast grade filter or paper for the negative.
>
> The object is to establish an equitable testing method, and not have a
> work flow that will give an unfair advantage to either media.
>
> > Inversely, comparing less than optimal prints doesn't compare what the
> > technologies are actually capable of, and so could be misleading.
>
> We are not determining the ultimate capability of each media, only a
> simple equivalency test: *how many megapixels = film? *Or, regarding my
> test: *Is a 12MP Canon 5D better, equal or inferior to 100 speed 35mm
> color print film? *If the 5D is so superior as you say, it should be
> readily apparent in the prints, even if printed right out the cameras.
>
> FWIW: *I never, nor do I ever, accept other people's tests or opinions as
> valid without first doing my own tests to verify their results. *It makes
> for good science and better photography.
>
> So far as I can find, no one has ever exactly done the tests I plan to do
> regarding the megapixel to film question. *Should be interesting.
>
If scanning really lost a significant amount of detail from film then
there should be scans of optical prints that show more detail then
scans from film. There really should not be any loss of detail when
scanning a print. For example let’s say I make an optical print that
is 8x12 inches, my scanner shows good detail down to 600ppi, which
would be about 34MP. In other words if the print had the detail I
would get a good image with 34MP of detail. If you really think that
there is still a loss even at that, no problem just make the print
larger, say 12x18, and if that is not large enough make the print
20x30 inches. The point is at some enlargement even a poor scanner is
going to capture all the detail that is in a print. And of course you
don’t have to print the whole image, a 4x6 crop out of a 20x30 inch
print would work fine.

Scott

Scott W

lid wrote:
> Fred McKenzie wrote:
>
>> The fact remains that a larger sensor (or film format) requires less
>> enlargement for a given print size.
>
> Correct
>
>> Less enlargement means any defect, whether from grain,
>
> Digital does not have grain.
>
>> noise,
>
> That's true, however, what matters is not absolute pixel size but rather
> ratio of lens diameter to pixel size: a 5 micron pixel with an f/2.8
> lens equals a 10 micron pixel with an f/5.6 lens. And these two
> situations (with equal megapixel sensors, will have identical DOF).

Pixel size is directly related to noise level. Pixel count can mitigate
somewhat.

> Thus, see below ...
>
>> pixelization
>
> Uh, what do you mean by this? Compression artifacts? Aliasing? None of
> these will exist in a proper camera (Leica lovers, take note!)
>
>> or lens imperfections,
>
> here is the crux, as mentioned above. To get equivalence, a small
> sensor will need a smaller (numerical) f/number lens, with the same
> resolution **at the subject, not image** as a larger sensor.
>
> There is also, at extremely low light levels (e.g. astrophotography),
> the dark current difference. But for general photography, this is
> a nonissue, and for real astro there is cooling.
>
> The bottom line therefore is that there is a limit to how low the
> lens f/numbers can go and still get the necessary resolution.

Diffraction limits resolution faster in smaller formats, and that's
directly related to pixel size.

> Small sensors will always lose, eventually, if you are willing to
> pay for big low f/number lenses.

Slow lenses are fine for some kinds of shots; just dim and harder to
focus with. Larger formats are easier to focus with.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman

David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> The people who have pulled out their wet projection prints and compared to
> scanned prints have found that the scans and prints were very similar.
>
> Here's a scan of a print:
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis...nt_snippet.jpg
>
> Here's the Nikon 8000:
> http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis...nt_snippet.jpg
>
> More at: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
>
> The point here is, of course, that the differences are tiny.

Same links above but I believe you

> I keep bringing up medium format. That's because there really is something
> better than 35mm. It seems to me that some of the people arguing that 35mm
> film is "equivalent" to 18MP or 24MP or whatever don't really realize how
> limited 35mm is if one tries to make larger prints.

So then the question is at what print size does digital look better than
film? Already it's pretty clear cropped digital is better than full
frame film with a decent DSLR, perhaps excepting slow specialty films.
Film has better highlights, digital better shadows...

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman

On Jun 10, 4:16*pm, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> > The people who have pulled out their wet projection prints and compared to
> > scanned prints have found that the scans and prints were very similar.
>
> > Here's a scan of a print:
> >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis...nt_snippet.jpg
>
> > Here's the Nikon 8000:
> >http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis...nt_snippet.jpg
>
> > More at:http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/
>
> > The point here is, of course, that the differences are tiny.
>
> Same links above but I believe you

Here is the link to the film scan
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis...an_snippet.jpg

Scott W

On Jun 10, 12:50 pm, Fred McKenzie <fm...@aol.com> wrote:
> In article <g2mag5$dm...@mouse.otenet.gr>,
> "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <no...@nospam.void> wrote:
>
> > So, it's digital compact->35 mm compact, dSLR->35 mm SLR, FF dSLR->film
> > medium format.
>
> I find it interesting that we have gotten past the discussion of APS
> being as good as Full Frame, and moved on to claiming that Full Frame is
> as good as 645!
>
> The fact remains that a larger sensor (or film format) requires less
> enlargement for a given print size. Less enlargement means any defect,
> whether from grain, noise, pixelization or lens imperfections, has less
> of an effect on the image. For that reason, there will always be an
> aspect to the 645 format that is better than the 35mm "full frame"
> format.
>
> Someday we might be discussing the relationship between 645 format and
> 6X7. Unfortunately it requires large, heavy bodies and lenses. Maybe
> Olympus was right!
>
> Fred
It always used to bother me when the film mfgs would say that a
certain new film was so high in resolution it would eliminate need for
medium format photography. I always wondered why they couldn't use
the same process on the MF films and get better resolution yet

Don Stauffer in Minnesota