Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: 35mm film VS digital

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: 35mm film VS digital

 
 
Stormin Mormon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2008
My little Lumix cost about a hundred bucks, on sale. I've gotten prints
equal to my 35 MM. Love the ability to select the mega bytes per frame. I
usually take still pics 0.3 mb, though I do use more MB for group photos,
etc. Where more detail is needed.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Bob Donahue" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop
of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember
grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.)

--
Bob D.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ken Hart1
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2008

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
>
>> My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
>> usually take still pics 0.3 mb

>
> Er, that's 320 x 200 pix.
>
> I would really like to know what '35 MM'
> camera you have.
>
> --
> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
> http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
> n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
>


I was wondering the same thing myself. I have a crappy 300Kpixel (0.3Mpixel)
camera that I got for box tops (well, not box tops, rather the barcodes from
cigarette packs), and it really and truely sucks!

OTOH, I often make 11x14 and 16x20 prints from my 35mm negs, and if the negs
were shot correctly (good exposure, focus, and held steady). the prints can
be very good.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2008
On Sep 1, 4:58*pm, "Ken Hart1" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Nicholas O. Lindan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in messagenews:C9ednQOS8Mwz5SHVnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@earth link.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Stormin Mormon" wrote:

>
> >> My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
> >> usually take still pics 0.3 mb

>
> > Er, that's 320 x 200 pix.

>
> > I would really like to know what '35 MM'
> > camera you have.

>
> > --
> > Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
> > Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
> >http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
> > n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

>
> I was wondering the same thing myself. I have a crappy 300Kpixel (0.3Mpixel)
> camera that I got for box tops (well, not box tops, rather the barcodes from
> cigarette packs), and it really and truely sucks!
>
> OTOH, I often make 11x14 and 16x20 prints from my 35mm negs, and if the negs
> were shot correctly (good exposure, focus, and held steady). the prints can
> be very good.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


I think Stomin Mormon might be trolling just a bit, since he cross
posted this to the 35mm group.

But I do have to point out that 0.3MB is not the same as 0.3MP.

Depending on the content of the image you can get a good looking 8x12
inch print from 0.3MB, but from 0.3MP not a chance.

Scott
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jim
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2008
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 19:20:14 -0400, "Nicholas O. Lindan" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"Stormin Mormon" wrote:
>
>> My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
>> usually take still pics 0.3 mb

>
>Er, that's 320 x 200 pix.
>
>I would really like to know what '35 MM'
>camera you have.


I think he means 0.3 megapixels. That means a 640*480 pixel image.
Still way too small for recent or even decade old monitors and with
the cheap cost of memory cards these days, taking small pictures like
that will only lead to regret in the future, if not already.

Jim
www.inghamcam.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stormin Mormon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2008
Couple of them. I mostly use the Olympus Trip 40, point and shoot. With
flash, takes two AA cells.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Nicholas O. Lindan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

> My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
> usually take still pics 0.3 mb


Er, that's 320 x 200 pix.

I would really like to know what '35 MM'
camera you have.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com



 
Reply With Quote
 
Stormin Mormon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2008
The camera says it's 7.something megapixel, so it does fairly good pics. I
do use more megabytes for group photos, and once in a while when I'm fairly
sure I've got a memorable moment.

For snap shots of the neighborhood, kids, dogs, etc, 0.3 makes reasonable
pics.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Ken Hart1" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:yZ1vk.254$Wd.15@trnddc01...

I was wondering the same thing myself. I have a crappy 300Kpixel (0.3Mpixel)
camera that I got for box tops (well, not box tops, rather the barcodes from
cigarette packs), and it really and truely sucks!

OTOH, I often make 11x14 and 16x20 prints from my 35mm negs, and if the negs
were shot correctly (good exposure, focus, and held steady). the prints can
be very good.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Stormin Mormon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2008
For sure, the mega pixel rating is a bit more than 0.3.

I had a camera from Ebay, which was 1.3 MP, and that took miserable pics.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Scott W" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...


But I do have to point out that 0.3MB is not the same as 0.3MP.

Depending on the content of the image you can get a good looking 8x12
inch print from 0.3MB, but from 0.3MP not a chance.

Scott


 
Reply With Quote
 
Stormin Mormon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2008
You would, then, be mistaken in your thoughts.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jim" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> My little Lumix ... prints equal to my 35 MM ...
>> usually take still pics 0.3 mb

>


I think he means 0.3 megapixels. That means a 640*480 pixel image.
Still way too small for recent or even decade old monitors and with
the cheap cost of memory cards these days, taking small pictures like
that will only lead to regret in the future, if not already.

Jim
www.inghamcam.info


 
Reply With Quote
 
Marvin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-02-2008
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> The camera says it's 7.something megapixel, so it does fairly good pics. I
> do use more megabytes for group photos, and once in a while when I'm fairly
> sure I've got a memorable moment.
>
> For snap shots of the neighborhood, kids, dogs, etc, 0.3 makes reasonable
> pics.
>


Perhaps 0.3 Mb is the size of the jpg. file.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stormin Mormon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2008
That's the setting I use. However, my windows computer says most of the pics
are about 0.150 MB.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Marvin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news_cvk.353$393.331@trnddc05...

Perhaps 0.3 Mb is the size of the jpg. file.


 
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
After having 8mm film reels digitally archived, film looks very grainy/ filled with static. Is this digital-looking noise normal? + more 8mm film questions Phil Edry Digital Photography 11 10-10-2004 11:57 PM
how does an 8mp digital camera compare to 35mm film? Mike Henley Digital Photography 18 05-21-2004 06:32 AM
What makes 35mm film different than digital? mark_digital Digital Photography 16 04-17-2004 07:58 AM
Moving from 35mm film to digital for Black and White Keith Cooper Digital Photography 3 04-12-2004 02:33 AM
Help - digital transfer of 35mm film o r b s c u r e DDJ Digital Photography 2 07-11-2003 05:14 PM



Advertisments