«

Hi,

Just an amateur photographer, very amateur, but was wondering about the
following:

Is it true that a "high resolution" photo emulsion like perhaps the
"old" Ektachrome (might not be the best example) had a much higher
inherent resolution capability than, e.g., a typical CCD imager that
might be used today in a high quality camera ?

If so, equivalent to how good a CCD, or what is a good way of
understanding this ?
Any thoughts on would be appreciated.

And, are there any specialized applications these days where film is
still the preferred choice ?
Which ?
Why ?

Thanks,
Bob

In article <k6sc10$c55$>, Bob <>
wrote:

> Is it true that a "high resolution" photo emulsion like perhaps the
> "old" Ektachrome (might not be the best example) had a much higher
> inherent resolution capability than, e.g., a typical CCD imager that
> might be used today in a high quality camera ?

long ago it did, but definitely not anymore. digital well surpasses
film.

> If so, equivalent to how good a CCD, or what is a good way of
> understanding this ?
> Any thoughts on would be appreciated.

more info than you probably want to know:
<http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html>

> And, are there any specialized applications these days where film is

> still the preferred choice ?
> Which ?
> Why ?

something like tech pan film maybe, but even that no longer has much of
an advantage anymore.

note that this chart from the link above stops at 20 mp.
<http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ry1/film.vs.di
gital.35mm-d.gif>

24 mp is now entry level and the nikon d800 has 36 mp.

On 1/11/2012 11:06 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <k6sc10$c55$>, Bob <>
> wrote:
>
>> Is it true that a "high resolution" photo emulsion like perhaps the
>> "old" Ektachrome (might not be the best example) had a much higher
>> inherent resolution capability than, e.g., a typical CCD imager that
>> might be used today in a high quality camera ?
>
> long ago it did, but definitely not anymore. digital well surpasses
> film.
>
>> If so, equivalent to how good a CCD, or what is a good way of
>> understanding this ?
>> Any thoughts on would be appreciated.
>
> more info than you probably want to know:
> <http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html>
>
>> And, are there any specialized applications these days where film is
>
>> still the preferred choice ?
>> Which ?
>> Why ?
>
> something like tech pan film maybe, but even that no longer has much of
> an advantage anymore.
>
> note that this chart from the link above stops at 20 mp.
> <http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/...ry1/film.vs.di
> gital.35mm-d.gif>
>
> 24 mp is now entry level and the nikon d800 has 36 mp.
>

100 asa colour film usually shows the grain at 4000 dpi scan

But as film was made for different end products, differs in its
resolution when scanned.

Digital, even at 6Mp image, was better than 100asa film. I have scanned
many of my old slides and tranny film and they still don't compare with
10Mp images off my D200 for reproduction.

There is no advantage in using film. If you wish to get a film like
image from digital there are a multitude of filters available to use
with editing programmes.

using film requires using an enlarger (mixing box or condenser lenses
and wet chemicals to obtain the intended results.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:25:15 -0400, Bob <> wrote:

>And, are there any specialized applications these days where film is
>still the preferred choice ?
>Which ?
>Why ?

Digital gear doesn't do well at temps below freezing. But film gear
does great when it's real cold. Pentax Spotmatics used to be famous
for their performance under arctic conditions. So film might be
preferred if you have to shoot at -40 deg C (same as -40 F for US
people).

I don't know what arctic explorers actually use, though -- maybe
digital with battery packs inside their coats.

W

In article <>,
Wally <> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:25:15 -0400, Bob <> wrote:
>
>>And, are there any specialized applications these days where film is
>>still the preferred choice ?
>>Which ?
>>Why ?
>
>Digital gear doesn't do well at temps below freezing. But film gear
>does great when it's real cold. Pentax Spotmatics used to be famous
>for their performance under arctic conditions. So film might be
>preferred if you have to shoot at -40 deg C (same as -40 F for US
>people).
>
>I don't know what arctic explorers actually use, though -- maybe
>digital with battery packs inside their coats.
>
>W

Dental X-Rays, I think. You have to clench a little film-holder between
your teeth. It doesn't seem like making a sensor like that would be
worthwhile.

In fact, the last chest X-Ray I got, about a year ago was still on film.
The tech said that yes, new ones would be digital, but the turnaround
was fast enough that there wasn't any big incentive to switch before
the lifespan of the unit.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

In article <>, Wally
<> wrote:

> Digital gear doesn't do well at temps below freezing.

nonsense. digital works just fine in below freezing temperatures.

batteries might need to be kept warm, but that's about it.

In article <>, Ted Nolan <tednolan>
<> wrote:

> Dental X-Rays, I think. You have to clench a little film-holder between
> your teeth. It doesn't seem like making a sensor like that would be
> worthwhile.

dental x-rays have been digital for years. you clench a sensor instead
of a film holder. they're not only faster, but also much better
quality.

In article <311020122246152307%>,
nospam <> wrote:
>In article <>, Ted Nolan <tednolan>
><> wrote:
>
>> Dental X-Rays, I think. You have to clench a little film-holder between
>> your teeth. It doesn't seem like making a sensor like that would be
>> worthwhile.
>
>dental x-rays have been digital for years. you clench a sensor instead
>of a film holder. they're not only faster, but also much better
>quality.

Interesting. I guess I'll see that next upgrade, but I haven't seen it yet.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 31/10/2012 23:25, Bob wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just an amateur photographer, very amateur, but was wondering about the
> following:
>
> Is it true that a "high resolution" photo emulsion like perhaps the
> "old" Ektachrome (might not be the best example) had a much higher
> inherent resolution capability than, e.g., a typical CCD imager that
> might be used today in a high quality camera ?

Ektachrome never did. Kodachrome 25 certainly did until it was
withdrawn. Specialist slow B&W films also did. But not any more!

The resolution of decent modern CCD kit now surpasses that of chemical
film. The only real advantage that film has is that you can get very
large cameras and huge sheets of film (bigger than the biggest CCDs).
These can make images with more pixels than any CCD yet made.
>
> If so, equivalent to how good a CCD, or what is a good way of
> understanding this ?
> Any thoughts on would be appreciated.
>
> And, are there any specialized applications these days where film is
> still the preferred choice ?

Certain wide field devices with curved focal planes - Schmidt cameras
for astronomy being one obvious example.

Holography plates where the image being formed is in the same scale as
the wavelength of light.

There are probably quite a few other niche markets where film is still
used because there is no suitable digital upgrade path as yet.

Used to be large sheet film for Xrays but even there solid state
techniques have now displaced wet film methods

> Which ?
> Why ?

At present the cost of truly huge CCDs thin enough to bend is
prohibitive and the market for them very small.

The requirements of the job in hand require some feature or
characteristic that is only available in a wet chemistry film.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:25:09 AM UTC, Wally wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:25:15 -0400, Bob <> wrote:
>
>
>
> >And, are there any specialized applications these days where film is
>
> >still the preferred choice ?
>
> >Which ?
>
> >Why ?
>
>
>
> Digital gear doesn't do well at temps below freezing. But film gear
>
> does great when it's real cold. Pentax Spotmatics used to be famous
>
> for their performance under arctic conditions. So film might be
>
> preferred if you have to shoot at -40 deg C (same as -40 F for US
>
> people).
>
>
>
> I don't know what arctic explorers actually use, though -- maybe
>
> digital with battery packs inside their coats.
>
>
>
> W

So in extreme circumstances film is better than digital. I will remember that if I will ever book a holiday in Arctic.

DanP