35mm to MP equivalence

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Atlas, Oct 14, 2003.

  1. Atlas

    Atlas Guest

    Rookie.
    Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
    gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
    Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
    silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is approximately
    true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?

    Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?

    bye
    Atlas, Oct 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Atlas

    Alan Browne Guest

    Atlas wrote:

    > Rookie.
    > Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
    > gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
    > Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
    > silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is approximately
    > true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?
    >
    > Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?
    >
    > bye
    >
    >


    Google away.
    Alan Browne, Oct 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <q9Sib.52995$>,
    "Alan Browne" <"Alan Browne"@videotron.canospam> wrote:

    > Atlas wrote:
    >
    > > Rookie.
    > > Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
    > > gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
    > > Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
    > > silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is approximately
    > > true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?
    > >
    > > Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?
    > >
    > > bye
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Google away.
    >


    The Kodak DCS 14n has a full frame sensor (CMOS) of 14 megapixels.
    ((Nikon mt.)

    The Canon 1Ds, or is it D1s has a full frame sensor (CMOS) of 11
    megapixels.

    The discontinued Contax digital SLR had a full frame sensor of 6
    megapixels.

    Gene McCluney
    Gene McCluney, Oct 14, 2003
    #3
  4. Atlas

    bmoag Guest

    There is no simple way to calculate this. Theoretically a 35mm film original
    can hold in excess of 50mps of usable information. However that does not
    necessarily translate into usable superior image quality if output quality
    is judged by what appears on a monitor or an inkjet/dye-sub print. The 35mm
    original must be transformed into digital via a scanner, a machine with its
    own set of technical foibles and limitations. For practical purposes even a
    3mp digital sensor can yield an 8x10 print that visually may be judged the
    equal or superior of a 2400dpi 35mm scan. Many cameraholics who have
    invested heavily in this first wave of high end digital cameras tumpet the
    superiority of their 5 and 6 mp sensors to 35mm film. From a technical
    standpoint this is lunatic self-delusion (and ignores the digital
    manipulation that is built into their systems to create a useful image from
    the noise that comes off the camera sensor), but from an aesthetic
    standpoint it is a valid subjective judgement.
    bmoag, Oct 14, 2003
    #4
  5. "bmoag" <> wrote:

    > There is no simple way to calculate this. Theoretically a 35mm film

    original
    > can hold in excess of 50mps of usable information. However that does not
    > necessarily translate into usable superior image quality if output quality
    > is judged by what appears on a monitor or an inkjet/dye-sub print. The

    35mm
    > original must be transformed into digital via a scanner, a machine with

    its
    > own set of technical foibles and limitations. For practical purposes even

    a
    > 3mp digital sensor can yield an 8x10 print that visually may be judged the
    > equal or superior of a 2400dpi 35mm scan. Many cameraholics who have
    > invested heavily in this first wave of high end digital cameras tumpet the
    > superiority of their 5 and 6 mp sensors to 35mm film. From a technical
    > standpoint this is lunatic self-delusion (and ignores the digital
    > manipulation that is built into their systems to create a useful image

    from
    > the noise that comes off the camera sensor), but from an aesthetic
    > standpoint it is a valid subjective judgement.


    Actually, it's the technical claim that is so clearly at odds with objective
    reality that's the lunacy...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 14, 2003
    #5
  6. Atlas

    PiZzazA Guest

    Roger Clark has a very good article on this. His web site is just beautiful
    and informational. Check it out

    http://www.clarkvision.com

    "Atlas" <> wrote in message
    news:NGRib.281067$...
    > Rookie.
    > Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
    > gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
    > Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
    > silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is

    approximately
    > true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?
    >
    > Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?
    >
    > bye
    >
    >
    PiZzazA, Oct 14, 2003
    #6
  7. Atlas

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <NGRib.281067$>, atlaspeak@my-
    deja.com says...
    > Rookie.
    > Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
    > gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
    > Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
    > silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is approximately
    > true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?


    There is lots of disagreement about this, but a good rule of thumb is
    that you need a digital camera with around 9 MP to have the same
    resolution as film (shot with a sharp lens).
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
    Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Alfred Molon, Oct 14, 2003
    #7
  8. I think you can use 5-50 mp right now. Different film etc make a big
    difference.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


    "Atlas" <> wrote in message
    news:NGRib.281067$...
    > Rookie.
    > Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
    > gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
    > Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
    > silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is

    approximately
    > true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?
    >
    > Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?
    >
    > bye
    >
    >
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 14, 2003
    #8
  9. Atlas

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Alfred Molon, Oct 14, 2003
    #9
  10. Atlas

    jriegle Guest

    I performed my own test. It does not take grain, color and some other image
    quality issues into consideration, just resolution.
    http://home.att.net/~jriegle/resolution.htm
    John



    "Atlas" <> wrote in message
    news:NGRib.281067$...
    > Rookie.
    > Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
    > gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
    > Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
    > silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is

    approximately
    > true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?
    >
    > Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?
    >
    > bye
    >
    >
    jriegle, Oct 14, 2003
    #10
  11. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <B3Zib.32389$>, sligojoeSPAM2
    > @hotmail.com says...
    > > I think you can use 5-50 mp right now. Different film etc make a

    big
    > > difference.

    >
    > The limitation is not the film. It's the lens (and the camera shake,
    > imperfect focusing etc.).
    > --



    You are right that camera shake, imperfect focusing and other factors
    often play a part in the whole, but to take the question of film out of the
    mix is at least as wrong. Take an image with Royal Pan and an image made
    with Techpan, both made by a photographer experienced with the materials and
    doing their job well, using the same equipment, and you will see photos from
    two different worlds.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 15, 2003
    #11
  12. Atlas

    Mark B. Guest

    "Atlas" <> wrote in message
    news:NGRib.281067$...
    > Rookie.
    > Is there a quite realistic way to calculate the number of MPs required to
    > gain the same resolution of a common 35mm film?
    > Could sound like your arses, but what if we start saying that a single
    > silver grain particle could act as a single pixel? If that is

    approximately
    > true, how many MP would we need to match the 35mm?
    >
    > Also, does it exist a digital SLR with a CMOS/CCD big as a 35mm slide?


    Kodak DCS-14n (14 megapixel), retails for approx. $5,000 and Canon 1Ds (11
    megapixel) with a retail of around $8,000.

    Mark
    Mark B., Oct 15, 2003
    #12
  13. Atlas

    Atlas Guest

    Uhu! You're opening a new world to my thoughts....After 1300 shots with a
    4MP camera (Canon Powershot G3), I've noticed that many pictures had
    focusing/shake problems. Thought it was my problem, moving the camera while
    shooting.......
    Now you say there's sucha a problem....
    Tell me more!


    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <B3Zib.32389$>, sligojoeSPAM2
    > @hotmail.com says...
    > > I think you can use 5-50 mp right now. Different film etc make a

    big
    > > difference.

    >
    > The limitation is not the film. It's the lens (and the camera shake,
    > imperfect focusing etc.).
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
    > Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
    > Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Atlas, Oct 15, 2003
    #13
  14. This is likely a bigger problem with digital than 35mm. The problem is
    due to the weight and size of most digitals compared to the traditional 35
    mm. They are smaller and lighter and they just don't fit the hand as well.

    With traditional 35 mm and now with digital one factor that needs to be
    considered is how the camera fits the user. If it just does not feel
    "right" chances are it is not right and it will be more difficult to avoid
    camera shake.

    While some cameras may not be right for anyone, it is a very personal
    choice so it is difficult to judge how a camera is going to work for someone
    else, just because it works for another.

    All the same tricks that work for traditional cameras also work for
    digital in this area.

    Good Luck.

    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math


    "Atlas" <> wrote in message
    news:F27jb.217357$...
    > Uhu! You're opening a new world to my thoughts....After 1300 shots with a
    > 4MP camera (Canon Powershot G3), I've noticed that many pictures had
    > focusing/shake problems. Thought it was my problem, moving the camera

    while
    > shooting.......
    > Now you say there's sucha a problem....
    > Tell me more!
    >
    >
    > "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <B3Zib.32389$>, sligojoeSPAM2
    > > @hotmail.com says...
    > > > I think you can use 5-50 mp right now. Different film etc make a

    > big
    > > > difference.

    > >
    > > The limitation is not the film. It's the lens (and the camera shake,
    > > imperfect focusing etc.).
    > > --
    > >
    > > Alfred Molon
    > > ------------------------------
    > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
    > > Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
    > > Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html

    >
    >
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 15, 2003
    #14
  15. "PiZzazA" <> wrote:

    >Roger Clark has a very good article on this. His web site is just beautiful
    >and informational. Check it out
    >
    > http://www.clarkvision.com


    Very good site! Thanks for the link.

    Hans-Georg

    --
    No mail, please.
    Hans-Georg Michna, Oct 15, 2003
    #15
  16. "jriegle" <> wrote in news:3i_ib.1334$Ec1.117595@bgtnsc05-
    news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

    > I performed my own test.


    Me too!. I just had to see for myself:
    http://www.mindspring.com/~dreamflier/Films-vs-Coolpix.html
    http://www.mindspring.com/~tony1964/MicroSlides.html

    The resolution of film depends heavily on what kind of film it is. You can
    see on my site that the slow slide films have ALOT more resolution than 5
    megapixels. I don't know how to calculate an equivalent megapixels number,
    though.

    --
    To email me, type my 1st name before my last.
    Tony Whitaker, Oct 15, 2003
    #16
  17. Atlas

    VT Guest

    On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:22:02 GMT, Tony Whitaker <>
    wrote:

    >
    >Me too!. I just had to see for myself:
    >http://www.mindspring.com/~dreamflier/Films-vs-Coolpix.html
    >http://www.mindspring.com/~tony1964/MicroSlides.html
    >


    This was excellent work and I remember discussing this in detail and
    starting another thread about "enough resolution".

    Tony you said this on your site:
    QUOTE:
    • Kodak Portra 160NC 35mm film has even more resolution than the slide
    films, but it is much grainier. However, the grain is consistent and
    fairly unobtrusive.
    • Kodak Gold 200 has more resolution than the slide films and 5
    megapixels, but it is extremely grainy.
    UNQUOTE

    Might I suggest you change the word "resolution" to "sharpness"?
    As there is a difference between sharpness (or actutance) and
    resolution.

    Sometimes one CAN resolve more details yet the photo does NOT look as
    "sharp" as one that resolves less detail -
    the case can be made that the 5Mp image in the gas cylinder detail
    looks "sharper" than that of the Velvia on page 1 - but as you proved
    with microscope views that the Velvia will resolve a lot more detail
    than the 5Mp.

    The Kodak Gold 200 is sharp looking - almost to the point of
    "over-sharpened" (or unnaturally sharp) but on enlargement (using the
    microscope) I'll hazard that it will have less ultimate detail than
    the Velvia or K64 - even if it seems look considerably "sharper".


    Whereas:
    QUOTE:
    • Fuji Velvia and Kodachrome 64 35mm slide films have significantly
    more resolution than 5 megapixels and very little grain.
    UNQUOTE
    is the correct usage of "resolution"
    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHES for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    VT, Oct 15, 2003
    #17
  18. Atlas

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <PM7jb.71065$>, sligojoeSPAM2
    @hotmail.com says...
    > This is likely a bigger problem with digital than 35mm. The problem is
    > due to the weight and size of most digitals compared to the traditional 35
    > mm. They are smaller and lighter and they just don't fit the hand as well.


    That's nonsense. The 5050 I'm using fits perfectly my hands, because it
    has a very good handgrip on the right side. Can't say the same of film
    cameras, but for instance the P&S of my wife has no such good handgrip
    and fits less well in the hand.
    Besides usually it's easier to hold a lighter object firm, instead of a
    heavier object.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/
    Olympus 4040 resource - http://www.molon.de/4040.html
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Alfred Molon, Oct 15, 2003
    #18
  19. "Atlas" <> wrote in message
    news:F27jb.217357$...
    > Uhu! You're opening a new world to my thoughts....After 1300 shots with a
    > 4MP camera (Canon Powershot G3), I've noticed that many pictures had
    > focusing/shake problems. Thought it was my problem, moving the camera

    while
    > shooting.......
    > Now you say there's sucha a problem....
    > Tell me more!
    >

    I haven't seen it lately, but the conventional advice to reduce camera shake
    is, "Squeeze the shutter release; don't push it." Hold the camera with your
    right thumb on the bottom and the index finger on the shutter release. Then
    squeeze. With a digicam, you have to hold the camera steady while the
    camera gets ready to take the photo. Another bit of conventional advice is
    to take a deep breath and hold it.
    Marvin Margoshes, Oct 15, 2003
    #19
  20. Atlas

    PiZzazA Guest

    I don't know if you ever handle a rifle.

    It exactly the same technique: hold your breath right before the pushing the
    release button, push down the button in a progressive and relaxed fashion,
    and NEVER close your eyes before the firing.

    "Marvin Margoshes" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Atlas" <> wrote in message
    > news:F27jb.217357$...
    > > Uhu! You're opening a new world to my thoughts....After 1300 shots with

    a
    > > 4MP camera (Canon Powershot G3), I've noticed that many pictures had
    > > focusing/shake problems. Thought it was my problem, moving the camera

    > while
    > > shooting.......
    > > Now you say there's sucha a problem....
    > > Tell me more!
    > >

    > I haven't seen it lately, but the conventional advice to reduce camera

    shake
    > is, "Squeeze the shutter release; don't push it." Hold the camera with

    your
    > right thumb on the bottom and the index finger on the shutter release.

    Then
    > squeeze. With a digicam, you have to hold the camera steady while the
    > camera gets ready to take the photo. Another bit of conventional advice

    is
    > to take a deep breath and hold it.
    >
    >
    PiZzazA, Oct 15, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. you suck

    35mm negs to digital

    you suck, Aug 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    571
    Computer Guy
    Aug 8, 2003
  2. Millard Filmore

    35mm Slide Conversion

    Millard Filmore, Aug 27, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    4,624
    Millard Filmore
    Aug 28, 2003
  3. just looking

    35mm film

    just looking, Nov 29, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    985
    Duck ducking
    Dec 1, 2004
  4. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    538
  5. savour
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,759
    savour
    Apr 29, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page