645 MF in pixel equivalent

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by drs@canby.com, Oct 2, 2004.

  1. Guest

    I just saw an item on the internet that said a 645 medium format
    negative contained 63 megapixels of information. That statement is
    ambiguous at best, isn't it? Wouldn't different sensors have different
    numbers of pixels? But regardless of whether the statement is true,
    how does a 645 negative scanned at 4000 dpi compare to a photo taken
    with a digital slr (not medium format)?
     
    , Oct 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:

    > I just saw an item on the internet that said a 645 medium format
    > negative contained 63 megapixels of information. That statement is
    > ambiguous at best, isn't it? Wouldn't different sensors have different
    > numbers of pixels? But regardless of whether the statement is true,
    > how does a 645 negative scanned at 4000 dpi compare to a photo taken
    > with a digital slr (not medium format)?


    Check out:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html

    Summary:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill Hilton Guest

    >From:

    >I just saw an item on the internet ...


    No doubt it's the Gospel Truth, since you never find any misinformation on the
    internet :)

    > ... that said a 645 medium format
    > negative contained 63 megapixels of information.


    You can get pretty much any number of pixels you want by scanning at a
    particular scan rez ... with my 645 films and my 4,000 dpi scanner for example
    I get around 56 Mpixels. Scanning at a higher rez with a drum scanner (which
    can scan 11,000 dpi easily) would increase the pixel count, so basically what
    your quote says is you're still plucking out useful info from the film at a
    slightly higher rez than 4,000 dpi, which I would agree with.

    >That statement is ambiguous at best, isn't it?


    I interpret it to mean you are still scanning info out of film with scan
    resolutions slightly over 4,000 dpi ... the most common figure I've seen is
    that film maxes out at around 5,000 dpi, though some (like Roger) disagree with
    this. At some point you're just scanning grain though and the extra rez isn't
    buying you anything.

    >Wouldn't different sensors have different numbers of pixels?


    What do you mean by "sensors"? This is film. The number of pixels you end up
    with depends on your scanner rez (unless you interpolate).

    >But regardless of whether the statement is true,
    >how does a 645 negative scanned at 4000 dpi compare to a photo taken
    >with a digital slr (not medium format)?


    I just shot some aspen photos last week with a Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixel digital), a
    Pentax 645 with Velvia and a Mamiya 6x7 with Velvia, shooting the same scenes
    with comparable lenses so I could answer this question to my own satisfaction.
    I'm going to print a couple of scenes to make this comparison for myself
    tomorrow once I scan the film @ 4,000 dpi. I'm printing 16x20" on an Epson
    4000 and will show the prints around to see what others think too.

    When I've done this test with the 1Ds vs 35 mm film the 1Ds won handily. I've
    already printed a couple of the digital images and they look fine but I suspect
    the scanned medium format film will look a bit better, though not as much
    better as the file sizes indicate. One thing I did notice was the film (on a
    light box) has a wider range of colors (ie, a wider gamut) ... how well this
    will translate onto a print is something I'll see tomorrow I guess once I print
    the film images. You rarely see this discussed and it's not important for many
    types of shots digital is fine for (portraits, most product shots, wildlife),
    but for landscapes I prefer having a wider gamut range to capture subtle
    colors. My money is on the film for this print test (especially the 6x7 cm)
    but we'll see.

    Here's a very controversial site that ran this same test and concluded that the
    1Ds beats medium format film easily. Most people who have run similar tests
    reached the opposite conclusion though, feeling that 11 Mpix is getting close
    to 645 but doesn't quite surpass it ...
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml (this one always
    brings out the loonies :)

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Can't really translate film and digital. Astia can resolve 150 lp/mm but
    what can the lens deliver?


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I just saw an item on the internet that said a 645 medium format
    > negative contained 63 megapixels of information. That statement is
    > ambiguous at best, isn't it? Wouldn't different sensors have different
    > numbers of pixels? But regardless of whether the statement is true,
    > how does a 645 negative scanned at 4000 dpi compare to a photo taken
    > with a digital slr (not medium format)?
     
    ~Darrell Larose~, Oct 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Tony Guest

    Somewhere between 1 pixel and
    1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.0003

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I just saw an item on the internet that said a 645 medium format
    > negative contained 63 megapixels of information. That statement is
    > ambiguous at best, isn't it? Wouldn't different sensors have different
    > numbers of pixels? But regardless of whether the statement is true,
    > how does a 645 negative scanned at 4000 dpi compare to a photo taken
    > with a digital slr (not medium format)?
     
    Tony, Oct 2, 2004
    #5
  6. << Can't really translate film and digital. Astia can resolve 150 lp/mm but
    what can the lens deliver? >>

    Darrell et al-

    This brings up another point that I didn't see mentioned here. When you scan a
    negative, you are using an optical process that has another lens. Even if it a
    good one, you still have a resulting digital image with imperfections
    compounded by the imperfections and resolution of two lenses plus a limit
    determined by both the film's grain and the digitizer's sensor matrix.

    In other words, you are kidding yourself if you think it is a fair evaluation
    of medium format film images compared to high-megapixel digital images.

    Fred
     
    Fred McKenzie, Oct 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Bill Hilton wrote:

    > You can get pretty much any number of pixels you want by scanning at a
    > particular scan rez ... with my 645 films and my 4,000 dpi scanner for example
    > I get around 56 Mpixels. Scanning at a higher rez with a drum scanner (which
    > can scan 11,000 dpi easily) would increase the pixel count, so basically what
    > your quote says is you're still plucking out useful info from the film at a
    > slightly higher rez than 4,000 dpi, which I would agree with.
    >
    >
    >>That statement is ambiguous at best, isn't it?

    >
    >
    > I interpret it to mean you are still scanning info out of film with scan
    > resolutions slightly over 4,000 dpi ... the most common figure I've seen is
    > that film maxes out at around 5,000 dpi, though some (like Roger) disagree with
    > this. At some point you're just scanning grain though and the extra rez isn't
    > buying you anything.


    Bill,
    Please specify what film you are using. My own tests showed fuji
    velvia was equivalent to about 45 megapixels digital equivalent.
    I believe that with velvia you can get a little more info beyond
    5000 dpi, but it really is diminishing returns. However, grain
    becomes smaller and less noticeable at higher res scans (like
    8,000 dpi).

    Roger
    >
    >
    >>Wouldn't different sensors have different numbers of pixels?

    >
    >
    > What do you mean by "sensors"? This is film. The number of pixels you end up
    > with depends on your scanner rez (unless you interpolate).
    >
    >
    >>But regardless of whether the statement is true,
    >>how does a 645 negative scanned at 4000 dpi compare to a photo taken
    >>with a digital slr (not medium format)?

    >
    >
    > I just shot some aspen photos last week with a Canon 1Ds (11 Mpixel digital), a
    > Pentax 645 with Velvia and a Mamiya 6x7 with Velvia, shooting the same scenes
    > with comparable lenses so I could answer this question to my own satisfaction.
    > I'm going to print a couple of scenes to make this comparison for myself
    > tomorrow once I scan the film @ 4,000 dpi. I'm printing 16x20" on an Epson
    > 4000 and will show the prints around to see what others think too.
    >
    > When I've done this test with the 1Ds vs 35 mm film the 1Ds won handily. I've
    > already printed a couple of the digital images and they look fine but I suspect
    > the scanned medium format film will look a bit better, though not as much
    > better as the file sizes indicate. One thing I did notice was the film (on a
    > light box) has a wider range of colors (ie, a wider gamut) ... how well this
    > will translate onto a print is something I'll see tomorrow I guess once I print
    > the film images. You rarely see this discussed and it's not important for many
    > types of shots digital is fine for (portraits, most product shots, wildlife),
    > but for landscapes I prefer having a wider gamut range to capture subtle
    > colors. My money is on the film for this print test (especially the 6x7 cm)
    > but we'll see.
    >
    > Here's a very controversial site that ran this same test and concluded that the
    > 1Ds beats medium format film easily. Most people who have run similar tests
    > reached the opposite conclusion though, feeling that 11 Mpix is getting close
    > to 645 but doesn't quite surpass it ...
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml (this one always
    > brings out the loonies :)
    >
    > Bill
    >
    >
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Fred McKenzie wrote:

    > << Can't really translate film and digital. Astia can resolve 150 lp/mm but
    > what can the lens deliver? >>
    >
    > Darrell et al-
    >
    > This brings up another point that I didn't see mentioned here. When you scan a
    > negative, you are using an optical process that has another lens. Even if it a
    > good one, you still have a resulting digital image with imperfections
    > compounded by the imperfections and resolution of two lenses plus a limit
    > determined by both the film's grain and the digitizer's sensor matrix.
    >
    > In other words, you are kidding yourself if you think it is a fair evaluation
    > of medium format film images compared to high-megapixel digital images.
    >
    > Fred
    >

    This assumption is false because the two optical systems
    (original camera lens and scanner lens) are not necessarily
    similar. For example, a good drum scanner uses microscope
    optics, so can resolve many times more detail than a
    typical camera lens.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 2, 2004
    #8
  9. Guest

    On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 18:10:17 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark)" <> wrote:


    Your sites are informative although they're way above my head in terms
    of understanding everything. Thanks for suggesting them.
    >http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html
    >
    >Summary:
    >http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html
    >
    >Roger


    Part of why I posted the note in the first place is I'm trying to
    match what camera equipment I want with what I can afford. Since I
    already use a 645 MF, I was wondering how scanning the negs would
    compare to shots taken with some of the digital slrs that I can't
    afford. Not that high quality scans are cheap but that was behind the
    question.
     
    , Oct 2, 2004
    #9
  10. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I just saw an item on the internet that said a 645 medium format
    > negative contained 63 megapixels of information. That statement is
    > ambiguous at best, isn't it?


    Insanely overoptimistic would be a more accurate assessment of that
    estimate.

    > Wouldn't different sensors have different
    > numbers of pixels? But regardless of whether the statement is true,
    > how does a 645 negative scanned at 4000 dpi compare to a photo taken
    > with a digital slr (not medium format)?


    16.7MP vs 645: http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473562/original

    16.7MP vs 35mm: http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/34473670/original

    These compare 300D images taken at 22mm and 35mm focal lengths upsampled
    appropriately with a 4000 dpi scan of a Tech Pan frame shot with a Mamiya
    645 + 35/3.5 lens.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 2, 2004
    #10
  11. Bill Hilton Guest

    >>Bill Hilton wrote:
    >>
    >> I interpret it to mean you are still scanning info out of film with scan
    >> resolutions slightly over 4,000 dpi ... the most common figure I've seen is
    >> that film maxes out at around 5,000 dpi, though some (like Roger)
    >>disagree with this. At some point you're just scanning grain though and
    >> the extra rez isn't buying you anything.


    >From: "Roger N. Clark
    >
    >Bill,
    >Please specify what film you are using.


    Velvia.

    >My own tests showed fuji
    >velvia was equivalent to about 45 megapixels digital equivalent.
    >I believe that with velvia you can get a little more info beyond
    >5000 dpi, but it really is diminishing returns.


    These two statements seem contradictory to me, if you mean 45 Mpix for 6x4.5 cm
    medium format. 45 Mpix implies a scan rez of about 3,600 dpi or so (I get
    about 55 Mpix at 4,000 dpi) ... you say "you can get a little more info beyond
    5000 dpi" but even 5,000 dpi would mean about 93 Mpixels or more than twice as
    many pixels.

    Can't have it both ways :) If it's really 45 Mpix then the scan rez is well
    below 5,000 dpi, assuming you meant 645 ...

    BTW I got the 5,000 dpi number from Bill Atkinson, often called the "Ansel
    Adams of digital photography". His home scanner is a Tango drum that goes up
    to 12,000 dpi or so and in a class I took with him he said he scanned both MF
    and large format Velvia at various resolutions from 4,000 dpi up to 10,000 dpi
    and decided 5,000 dpi was the point at which he simply didn't see any further
    improvement with LightJet prints.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 2, 2004
    #11
  12. Bill Hilton Guest

    >From:

    >Part of why I posted the note in the first place is I'm trying to
    >match what camera equipment I want with what I can afford. Since I
    >already use a 645 MF, I was wondering how scanning the negs would
    >compare to shots taken with some of the digital slrs that I can't
    >afford. Not that high quality scans are cheap but that was behind the
    >question.


    You can get a really nice MF film scanner like the Nikon 9000 for (I think)
    under $2,000. You didn't mention how large you want to print but with this
    setup you'll definitely get better large prints than with digital files from
    the 8 Mpixel dSLR's, based on what we're seeing with our Canon 1D Mark II's.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 2, 2004
    #12
  13. Guest

    On 02 Oct 2004 16:53:30 GMT, dy (Bill Hilton)
    wrote:

    >>From:

    >
    >>Part of why I posted the note in the first place is I'm trying to
    >>match what camera equipment I want with what I can afford. Since I
    >>already use a 645 MF, I was wondering how scanning the negs would
    >>compare to shots taken with some of the digital slrs that I can't
    >>afford. Not that high quality scans are cheap but that was behind the
    >>question.

    >
    >You can get a really nice MF film scanner like the Nikon 9000 for (I think)
    >under $2,000. You didn't mention how large you want to print but with this
    >setup you'll definitely get better large prints than with digital files from
    >the 8 Mpixel dSLR's, based on what we're seeing with our Canon 1D Mark II's.
    >
    >Bill


    I haven't printed anything larger than 24 inches wide but those have
    been very clean with the MF. I guess I want the impossible: a digital
    I can afford that will match the detail I like with MF. I'm not
    familiar with the Nikon 9000 but I'd probably put that kind of money
    toward a camera. I keep hoping a dslr with about 15 mp will be
    available for $1500. I'm sure it will but I'd sort of prefer it within
    my lifetime.
     
    , Oct 2, 2004
    #13
  14. On Saturday 02 October 2004 10:29, wrote:

    > On 02 Oct 2004 16:53:30 GMT, dy (Bill Hilton)
    > wrote:
    >
    >>>From:

    >>
    >>>Part of why I posted the note in the first place is I'm trying to
    >>>match what camera equipment I want with what I can afford. Since I
    >>>already use a 645 MF, I was wondering how scanning the negs would
    >>>compare to shots taken with some of the digital slrs that I can't
    >>>afford. Not that high quality scans are cheap but that was behind
    >>>the question.

    >>
    >>You can get a really nice MF film scanner like the Nikon 9000 for (I
    >>think)
    >>under $2,000. You didn't mention how large you want to print but
    >>with this setup you'll definitely get better large prints than with
    >>digital files from the 8 Mpixel dSLR's, based on what we're seeing
    >>with our Canon 1D Mark II's.
    >>
    >>Bill

    >
    > I haven't printed anything larger than 24 inches wide but those have
    > been very clean with the MF. I guess I want the impossible: a
    > digital I can afford that will match the detail I like with MF. I'm
    > not familiar with the Nikon 9000 but I'd probably put that kind of
    > money toward a camera. I keep hoping a dslr with about 15 mp will be
    > available for $1500. I'm sure it will but I'd sort of prefer it
    > within my lifetime.


    Yes, you are hoping for the impossible. Maybe, next year. ;-)

    Seriously, if you want MF quality prints from digital, you won't get
    it from any digital camera or MF digital back today, even those $10k
    to $20k, 36mm x 48mm, 22MP ones are really only equivalent to a good
    35mm camera and 100 speed film. For 645 equivalency, you'd need
    around 3 times 22MP, since 645 is a little more than 3 times the area
    of a 35mm film frame. Film still has the edge over digital where
    resolution is concerned. So, a good film scanner and a medium format
    film camera is still the most cost effective solution for now. And
    don't cut corners on the printer either, or you'll have wasted that
    money buying a good camera and film scanner. Your prints will only
    be as good as the weakest link in the workflow.

    --
    Stefan Patric
     
    Stefan Patric, Oct 3, 2004
    #14
  15. Bill Hilton wrote:

    >>>Bill Hilton wrote:
    >>>
    >>>I interpret it to mean you are still scanning info out of film with scan
    >>>resolutions slightly over 4,000 dpi ... the most common figure I've seen is
    >>>that film maxes out at around 5,000 dpi, though some (like Roger)
    >>>disagree with this. At some point you're just scanning grain though and
    >>>the extra rez isn't buying you anything.

    >
    >
    >>From: "Roger N. Clark
    >>
    >>Bill,
    >>Please specify what film you are using.

    >
    >
    > Velvia.
    >
    >
    >>My own tests showed fuji
    >>velvia was equivalent to about 45 megapixels digital equivalent.
    >>I believe that with velvia you can get a little more info beyond
    >>5000 dpi, but it really is diminishing returns.

    >
    >
    > These two statements seem contradictory to me, if you mean 45 Mpix for 6x4.5 cm
    > medium format. 45 Mpix implies a scan rez of about 3,600 dpi or so (I get
    > about 55 Mpix at 4,000 dpi) ... you say "you can get a little more info beyond
    > 5000 dpi" but even 5,000 dpi would mean about 93 Mpixels or more than twice as
    > many pixels.


    I meant that the maximum detail scanned from 645 film would produce
    an image that would require a digital camera with about 30 to 45
    megapixels to match spatial detail. The ~30 megapixels is the luminance
    spatial resolution, and ~45 megapixels is the color spatial detail.
    A 4000 dpi scan of 6x4.5 cm film would give about a
    7000 x9000 pixel image, or 63 megapixels but have somewhat
    less real resolution. A 5000 dpi scan would come close to
    getting all the detail off the film. Of course the film would
    have much less signal to noise than a digital camera image, so
    a much smaller digital image, like Canon's new 16 mpixel camera
    can apparently look as good or perhaps better, but would have
    less actual resolution. I think we've agreed on this
    in the past. It is hard to quantify the increase in perception
    of image quality with signal to noise alone, but it is quite
    significant.
    >
    > Can't have it both ways :) If it's really 45 Mpix then the scan rez is well
    > below 5,000 dpi, assuming you meant 645 ...
    >
    > BTW I got the 5,000 dpi number from Bill Atkinson, often called the "Ansel
    > Adams of digital photography". His home scanner is a Tango drum that goes up
    > to 12,000 dpi or so and in a class I took with him he said he scanned both MF
    > and large format Velvia at various resolutions from 4,000 dpi up to 10,000 dpi
    > and decided 5,000 dpi was the point at which he simply didn't see any further
    > improvement with LightJet prints.


    I put the number at 6000 dpi personally. For drum scans, I've
    been getting 6000 dpi scans of 35mm velvia which give approximately
    140 megabyte files. I've seen 11,000 dpi drum scans of
    35mm kodachrome 25 enlarged to 30x40 inches that was jaw-dropping
    (I thought it was at least 6x7 medium format).
    I done tests of velvia scanned up to 11,000 dpi,and the
    interesting thing I find is that while no more spatial detail
    gets scanned, the grain pattern appears smaller and less
    apparent in the higher resolution scans (above 6000 dpi)
    (yet another web page on my list to build).
    For 4x5 I've done many ~3300 dpi scans for 650 megabyte files
    (just fits onto a CD). Now, I've gone to 16-bit scans,
    so these file sizes double. My opinion from all these tests
    is that scanners in the 4000 to 5000 dpi range maximize apparent
    grain of fine grained films like velvia.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 3, 2004
    #15
  16. Bill Hilton wrote:

    >>From:

    >
    >
    >>Part of why I posted the note in the first place is I'm trying to
    >>match what camera equipment I want with what I can afford. Since I
    >>already use a 645 MF, I was wondering how scanning the negs would
    >>compare to shots taken with some of the digital slrs that I can't
    >>afford. Not that high quality scans are cheap but that was behind the
    >>question.

    >
    >
    > You can get a really nice MF film scanner like the Nikon 9000 for (I think)
    > under $2,000. You didn't mention how large you want to print but with this
    > setup you'll definitely get better large prints than with digital files from
    > the 8 Mpixel dSLR's, based on what we're seeing with our Canon 1D Mark II's.


    I agree. Another thing if you are interested in landscapes and
    use small apertures, like f/16 and smaller: digital cameras
    suffer from dust on the sensor that becomes real apparent
    at small apertures. Thus, you are much better off with film.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 3, 2004
    #16
    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. Alan Browne

    Re: New Mamiya 645 may influence DSLR prices

    Alan Browne, Sep 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    1,030
    Skip M
    Oct 7, 2004
  2. RichA

    New Pentax 645 and the death of the CF card

    RichA, Mar 13, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    405
    Bruce
    Mar 15, 2010
  3. RichA
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    732
    Peter
    Jul 20, 2010
  4. RichA

    Big Pentax 645 blows away top DSLRs

    RichA, Dec 4, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    614
    Ray Fischer
    Dec 10, 2010
  5. Sandman

    Digital back for a Mamiya 645 Pro TL?

    Sandman, May 3, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,784
    Sandman
    May 3, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page