Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by arifi, May 24, 2006.

  1. arifi

    arifi Guest

    Hello again.

    Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite
    II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels.
    The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal
    to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was:
    Short edge of 35mm film: 24 / 25.4 = 0.945"
    Long edge of 35mm film: 36 / 25.4 = 1.417"
    Pixel count along the short edge = 0.945 * 2820 = 2664
    Pixel count along the long edge = 1.417 * 2820 = 3995
    Total pixel count on the scanning area = 2664 * 3995 = 10642680,
    roughly 10M

    Now, should this calculation mean that a good slide + scanning with
    this scanner will be equivalent to shooting with a 10MP full-frame 35mm
    DSLR ? How would the results compare to the line of current 8MP
    not-full-frame DSLRs and would results be comparable to those off an
    EOS 5D (which has a 12.8 MP 35mm full-frame sensor) by any criteria?

    Best,
    -arifi
    arifi, May 24, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. arifi

    Guest

    >Now, should this calculation mean that a good slide + scanning with
    >this scanner will be equivalent to shooting with a 10MP full-frame 35mm
    >DSLR ?


    Nope. Arifi, you need to do some more research - this topic has been
    flogged to an inch of its life on this forum and others.

    One pixel from a film scan does not, not, NOT equal one pixel from a
    digital camera.

    A 27-2800 ppi scanner is *very roughly* equivalent in quality to a good
    4-5 Mp point and shoot camera, and it falls well short of a decent 6Mp
    DSLR, let alone an 8 or 12 - those cameras will run rings around it.

    Having said that, if all you ever print is 7x5's, you probably won't
    notice much difference.

    To put it into perspective, your 2820ppi scanner will give results that
    are barely OK for 11"x 8" prints - anything bigger will look rather
    miserable.

    The 8Mp/12Mp DSLRs will give you much better (very sharp) 11" x 8"s,
    and damn good 17" x 11"s. Even a 6Mp will be very noticably better.

    All of this depends a bit on your quality standards. If you have never
    seen truly sharp (eg medium format) large prints, you might have a
    different view. FWIW, I own a 2700 ppi scanner, own and use various
    6-12Mp cameras, occasionally dabble with medium format, and often print
    very large...


    YMMV..
    , May 24, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. arifi

    Ben Brugman Guest

    "arifi" <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    > Hello again.
    >
    > Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite
    > II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels.
    > The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal
    > to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was:
    > Short edge of 35mm film: 24 / 25.4 = 0.945"
    > Long edge of 35mm film: 36 / 25.4 = 1.417"
    > Pixel count along the short edge = 0.945 * 2820 = 2664
    > Pixel count along the long edge = 1.417 * 2820 = 3995
    > Total pixel count on the scanning area = 2664 * 3995 = 10642680,
    > roughly 10M


    Suppose that your Minolta Dimage Scan Elite produces within your
    calculation perfect pixels. (They are not).
    Then you have 10 M pixels for each of the three colors. That works
    out to be 10 M for R, 10 M for G and 10 M for B. This is 30 M
    subpixels.

    The pixel count in a camera starts of with subpixels.
    1/2 the pixels are green, 1/4 are Blue, 1/4 are Red.
    So to get the same number of perfect pixels you would need 3 times
    (or 4 times) as many pixels in the DSLR.
    And then the DSLR still can produce more moire on structures because
    the space between the different colors is devided.
    (Only one 1/4 of the area is sensitive to red for example, where with the
    scanner
    this is often near 100 %, this depends on the design though).

    So the technical design of the scanner could produce far better results than
    the DSLR. But there are a lot of limits for the scanner, film or slides in
    practise do not have the resolution that the scanner is specified for.
    The scanner probably is not totaly sharp. With desktop scanners I have
    scanned raisor blades to see how sharp the scanners could scan this,
    maybe you could come up with a setup to try this with your scanner and
    probably you'll see that the edge of the totaly sharp raisor blades covers
    several pixels in width.

    So if you had totaly sharp slides (which do not exist) and a totaly perfect
    scanner with your specifications. You would need more than 30 Mp to
    compete with that setup.

    ben
    >
    > Now, should this calculation mean that a good slide + scanning with
    > this scanner will be equivalent to shooting with a 10MP full-frame 35mm
    > DSLR ? How would the results compare to the line of current 8MP
    > not-full-frame DSLRs and would results be comparable to those off an
    > EOS 5D (which has a 12.8 MP 35mm full-frame sensor) by any criteria?
    >
    > Best,
    > -arifi
    >
    Ben Brugman, May 24, 2006
    #3
  4. "arifi" <> wrote:
    > Hello again.
    >
    > Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite
    > II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels.
    > The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal
    > to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was:


    People will argue, but in real life 35 film _no matter how you scan or print
    it_ at its very very best captures about 8MP of detail. (Roger Clark, one of
    the more sensible people here, still has a rather strange appreciation for
    Velvia 50, which in my experience it's grainier and uglier than Provia 100F,
    and argues that it's "worth" a lot more MP than I've ever seen from a square
    mm of film (and I've spent the last four years shooting medium format film
    while waiting for the 5D, inspecting every frame with a 60x microscope.))

    Anyway, in real life, 35mm makes a _nice_ 8x10, but is losing it badly
    compared to medium format at 11x14.

    > Short edge of 35mm film: 24 / 25.4 = 0.945"
    > Long edge of 35mm film: 36 / 25.4 = 1.417"
    > Pixel count along the short edge = 0.945 * 2820 = 2664
    > Pixel count along the long edge = 1.417 * 2820 = 3995
    > Total pixel count on the scanning area = 2664 * 3995 = 10642680,
    > roughly 10M


    The problem here is that scanned pixels are really really ugly. Incredibly
    ugly. Here's a page of some of the best scans made by modern equipment.

    http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

    > Now, should this calculation mean that a good slide + scanning with
    > this scanner will be equivalent to shooting with a 10MP full-frame 35mm
    > DSLR ? How would the results compare to the line of current 8MP
    > not-full-frame DSLRs and would results be comparable to those off an
    > EOS 5D (which has a 12.8 MP 35mm full-frame sensor) by any criteria?


    The 5D competes with 645 (56 x 42 mm); 35mm isn't even close.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, May 24, 2006
    #4
  5. arifi

    tomm42 Guest

    arifi,
    MP is convenient when comparing cameras, but with files what counts is
    the uncompressed size.With your scanner that will be approx 30mb file.
    Close to a 10MP camera, But no scanner is perfect, where as your lens -
    sensor alignment on a camera is close to perfect. Even a well scanned
    35mm slide will not equal a camera file in sharpness but it should be
    better than the camera file in dynamic range. That is why folk just
    don't copy slides with a DSLR. I'm not going to make what equals what
    pronouncements. A couple of years ago I was with a group photographing
    a AAA minor league baseball team. We had to have a team photo for
    opening day, 4 days hence, cheap guys so they wanted to run their years
    supply all at once. We shot a Mamiya 645 and a 6mp Kodak 760, one of
    the owners friends used a Hassleblad. Because of the printers time
    constraints they used our 6mp image. Nice team pic, better than the
    year before's, we don't know how that was shot. How did the images
    compare, the team had enlargements made from a Mamiya and Hassy image
    to the 20x24 size of the printed team picture. Our digital file printed
    was way better than the Mamiya file (admittedly an old camera ald
    lens), the enlarged (photographic print) from the Hassleblad was
    marginally better than the offset printed digital. The digital file
    also kept the team to their deadlines, no extra rush fees. Convinced
    me.
    A scanner is the best way to reproduce your 35mm slides & negs, can
    they be as good as digital camera files, probably not.

    Tom
    tomm42, May 24, 2006
    #5
  6. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "arifi" <> wrote:
    >
    >>Hello again.
    >>
    >>Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite
    >>II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels.
    >>The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal
    >>to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was:

    >
    >
    > People will argue, but in real life 35 film _no matter how you scan or print
    > it_ at its very very best captures about 8MP of detail. (Roger Clark, one of
    > the more sensible people here, still has a rather strange appreciation for
    > Velvia 50, which in my experience it's grainier and uglier than Provia 100F,
    > and argues that it's "worth" a lot more MP than I've ever seen from a square
    > mm of film (and I've spent the last four years shooting medium format film
    > while waiting for the 5D, inspecting every frame with a 60x microscope.))


    David,
    The technical specifications of velvia show it has higher spatial
    resolution than provia. Then you mis-characterize my position.
    Don't confuse spatial resolution with image quality. Fine
    grained 35mm film has higher spatial resolution than most DSLRs, but
    film also has much poorer signal-to-noise ratios. Try reading:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    and get beyond Figure 1 (digital megapixel equivalent versus film speed);
    read the Apparent Image Quality section. There you will see I
    rate an 8-megapixel DSLR well above both velvia and provia 35mm film.

    For the OP: see the above page plus:
    Image Detail (How much detail can you capture and scan?)
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html

    But note, as above, spatial resolution is only one part of
    image quality.

    Also note that the reasonable rating of a scanner ppi is about 2/3
    the manufacturer's specification, so 2820 ppi consumer scanner
    would be equivalent to about 1890 ppi compared to a high end
    scanner like a drum scan.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), May 24, 2006
    #6
  7. "arifi" <> writes:

    > Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite
    > II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels.
    > The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal
    > to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was:
    > Short edge of 35mm film: 24 / 25.4 = 0.945"
    > Long edge of 35mm film: 36 / 25.4 = 1.417"
    > Pixel count along the short edge = 0.945 * 2820 = 2664
    > Pixel count along the long edge = 1.417 * 2820 = 3995
    > Total pixel count on the scanning area = 2664 * 3995 = 10642680,
    > roughly 10M
    >
    > Now, should this calculation mean that a good slide + scanning with
    > this scanner will be equivalent to shooting with a 10MP full-frame 35mm
    > DSLR ? How would the results compare to the line of current 8MP
    > not-full-frame DSLRs and would results be comparable to those off an
    > EOS 5D (which has a 12.8 MP 35mm full-frame sensor) by any criteria?


    Digital original pixels are 'worth more' in image quality than scanned
    pixels -- they're one generation closer to the original, after all.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, May 24, 2006
    #7
  8. arifi

    Mark Guest

    I am not sure of the technical aspects, however I have recently started
    scanning my 35mm negatives using a Nikon 4000DPI scanner.

    I would never be able to use the 100% scan to print, as it just isn't sharp
    enough (in fact I thought the scans would be sharper than they were), but I
    would be able to print a 100% photo from my 20D.

    With the scan, you need to downsize the image to get a decent image.

    I suppose it is similar to comparing digital camera's by the amount of
    megapixels. You can have a cheap 6MP point and shoot camera, and an
    expensive 6MP camera with a decent lens. They are both 6MP, but what is the
    point of having a sensor that can capture 6MP, when the image reaching the
    sensor is crap. If you take a photo on a DSLR with no lens attached, the
    image is still 6MP, but just a big blur.


    "arifi" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello again.
    >
    > Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite
    > II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels.
    > The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal
    > to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was:
    > Short edge of 35mm film: 24 / 25.4 = 0.945"
    > Long edge of 35mm film: 36 / 25.4 = 1.417"
    > Pixel count along the short edge = 0.945 * 2820 = 2664
    > Pixel count along the long edge = 1.417 * 2820 = 3995
    > Total pixel count on the scanning area = 2664 * 3995 = 10642680,
    > roughly 10M
    >
    > Now, should this calculation mean that a good slide + scanning with
    > this scanner will be equivalent to shooting with a 10MP full-frame 35mm
    > DSLR ? How would the results compare to the line of current 8MP
    > not-full-frame DSLRs and would results be comparable to those off an
    > EOS 5D (which has a 12.8 MP 35mm full-frame sensor) by any criteria?
    >
    > Best,
    > -arifi
    >
    Mark, May 24, 2006
    #8
  9. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "arifi" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Hello again.
    >>>
    >>>Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite
    >>>II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs. Megapixels.
    >>>The Elite II is a 2820 DPI scanner, which I have calculated to be equal
    >>>to a 10 MP full-frame (35mm) DSLR. My calculation was:

    >>
    >>
    >> People will argue, but in real life 35 film _no matter how you scan or
    >> print it_ at its very very best captures about 8MP of detail. (Roger
    >> Clark, one of the more sensible people here, still has a rather strange
    >> appreciation for Velvia 50, which in my experience it's grainier and
    >> uglier than Provia 100F, and argues that it's "worth" a lot more MP than
    >> I've ever seen from a square mm of film (and I've spent the last four
    >> years shooting medium format film while waiting for the 5D, inspecting
    >> every frame with a 60x microscope.))

    >
    > David,
    > The technical specifications of velvia show it has higher spatial
    > resolution than provia.


    Maybe. But the experience here is that Velvia 50 scans uglier than the
    "100F" films.

    > Then you mis-characterize my position.
    > Don't confuse spatial resolution with image quality. Fine
    > grained 35mm film has higher spatial resolution than most DSLRs, but
    > film also has much poorer signal-to-noise ratios. Try reading:
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    > and get beyond Figure 1 (digital megapixel equivalent versus film speed);


    Oops: you've redone that figure since the last time I looked. Still, I think
    you are way overstating 35mm Velvia. It really takes 6x7 before you see more
    detail from film than from 12MP digital.

    > read the Apparent Image Quality section. There you will see I
    > rate an 8-megapixel DSLR well above both velvia and provia 35mm film.


    Well, if you didn't start out by calling it at 14MP, then I wouldn't grump.

    The problem is that film has a long "tail" in its response; it can record
    extremely high contrast detail way out to insane lp/mm levels, but does very
    badly at lower contrast images. In my (and others) tests of 6x7 Provia vs.
    the 12MP cameras, 6x7 nails the fine high-contrast detail that the 5D is
    just beginning to lose it on, but the rest of the image is a toss-up. I've
    found that for portraits, it is incredibly critical to fill the frame with
    the subject with film. Standing back a bit to take in some of the context is
    simply not an option. Because film is so grody for low-contrast parts of the
    image.

    In other words, Velvia/Provia are only "14MP" for street signs and license
    plates. For everything else, they're not even 8MP.

    > Also note that the reasonable rating of a scanner ppi is about 2/3
    > the manufacturer's specification, so 2820 ppi consumer scanner
    > would be equivalent to about 1890 ppi compared to a high end
    > scanner like a drum scan.


    I suspect that this rule of thumb, while in the right direction, is a tad
    too general. I'd guess the 2820 ppi class scanners' practical/apparent
    resolutions are a lot closer to their nominal values than the 4000 ppi class
    scanners. This has to be true simply because film begins to break down at
    anything over an 8x enlargement, so no matter what resolution you scan at,
    2400 ppi is about the highest resolution film itself supports _for producing
    grain-sniffable prints_. Posters on a wall is a different question, of
    course.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, May 25, 2006
    #9
  10. David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >>The technical specifications of velvia show it has higher spatial
    >>resolution than provia.

    >
    > Maybe. But the experience here is that Velvia 50 scans uglier than the
    > "100F" films.


    Maybe it is your scanner. My experience is just the opposite.

    >> Then you mis-characterize my position.
    >>Don't confuse spatial resolution with image quality. Fine
    >>grained 35mm film has higher spatial resolution than most DSLRs, but
    >>film also has much poorer signal-to-noise ratios. Try reading:
    >>http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html
    >>and get beyond Figure 1 (digital megapixel equivalent versus film speed);

    >
    > Oops: you've redone that figure since the last time I looked. Still, I think
    > you are way overstating 35mm Velvia. It really takes 6x7 before you see more
    > detail from film than from 12MP digital.


    Remember the Figure 1 plot is only spatial resolution, and breaks
    down into two components: luminance resolution and color resolution.
    The bottom of the vertical bar for each film is the luminance
    megapixel equivalent and for Provia 100, that is 8 megapixels.
    But bayer sensors have lower color resolution, so your quoting
    the 12 megapixel number is for color resolution. Most of the
    effect that you see in a typical image is luminance resolution.

    Then, second, again it depends on your scanner. I used multiple
    scanners in my research including high-end drum scanners.

    If you are simply comparing image quality, the higher
    signal-to-noise of electronic sensors further improves image quality.
    It takes some effort to separate these effects, and that is what
    I attempted to do in the article.

    >>read the Apparent Image Quality section. There you will see I
    >>rate an 8-megapixel DSLR well above both velvia and provia 35mm film.

    >
    > Well, if you didn't start out by calling it at 14MP, then I wouldn't grump.
    >
    > The problem is that film has a long "tail" in its response; it can record
    > extremely high contrast detail way out to insane lp/mm levels, but does very
    > badly at lower contrast images. In my (and others) tests of 6x7 Provia vs.
    > the 12MP cameras, 6x7 nails the fine high-contrast detail that the 5D is
    > just beginning to lose it on, but the rest of the image is a toss-up. I've
    > found that for portraits, it is incredibly critical to fill the frame with
    > the subject with film. Standing back a bit to take in some of the context is
    > simply not an option. Because film is so grody for low-contrast parts of the
    > image.


    Again you seem focused on Figure 1. Try focusing on the table in the
    AIQ section. Perhaps I need to make that data into a picture. I'm slowly
    learning that photographers can't seem to comprehend numbers; they
    need a picture ;-).

    > In other words, Velvia/Provia are only "14MP" for street signs and license
    > plates. For everything else, they're not even 8MP.


    And if you looked at the AIQ table, you would see I agree:
    35mm Velvia 50 has an AIQ = 14; 8 MPixel DSLR = 38 at ISO 100,
    over twice as good.


    >>Also note that the reasonable rating of a scanner ppi is about 2/3
    >>the manufacturer's specification, so 2820 ppi consumer scanner
    >>would be equivalent to about 1890 ppi compared to a high end
    >>scanner like a drum scan.

    >
    > I suspect that this rule of thumb, while in the right direction, is a tad
    > too general. I'd guess the 2820 ppi class scanners' practical/apparent
    > resolutions are a lot closer to their nominal values than the 4000 ppi class
    > scanners.


    I have yet to see a consumer scanner that did better than the 2/3 guideline.
    The low ppi scanners tend to be made more cheaply, so all I've seen
    seem the follow the guide. The manufacturers should be required
    to publish the MTF for their rated PPI.

    > This has to be true simply because film begins to break down at
    > anything over an 8x enlargement, so no matter what resolution you scan at,
    > 2400 ppi is about the highest resolution film itself supports _for producing
    > grain-sniffable prints_. Posters on a wall is a different question, of
    > course.


    I disagree. I have made 19x24 and 24x36 inch prints (now hanging in
    offices and galleries) from 35 mm velvia drum-scanned images that
    pro photographers have asked: "is that medium or large format?"
    Even at 4000 ppi velvia, Provia and Kodachrome are grain-aliased
    by the scanner. Velvia and Kodachrome even at 5000 ppi. This means
    that grain appears enhanced at these ppi. But as one goes higher,
    the grain aliasing reduces, apparent grain becomes smaller and
    the image smoother.

    I've seen 30x40-inch prints of 35mm Kodachrome 25 drum scanned at
    around 9000 ppi and printed on a Lightjet that I would have
    sworn was large format (my mouth dropped to the floor).
    Quality can be had from film, but it comes only with top
    equipment and a high price. I now only do film in 4x5 now,
    otherwise I'm all digital, and looking to replace most 4x5 with
    digital mosaics.

    Roger
    Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), May 25, 2006
    #10
  11. "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> Maybe. But the experience here is that Velvia 50 scans uglier than the
    >> "100F" films.

    >
    > Maybe it is your scanner. My experience is just the opposite.


    I compare what the scanner gets with what a (cheap) micropscope and an
    expensive high-power loupe show, and don't see a lot of difference. Velvia
    50 is relatively grainy stuff compared to the 100F films. If there's detail
    captured, it's so hidden in the grain that it's not photographically
    significant.

    But we've been through this before: Provia 100F is soft at 13x, but its not
    ugly, and your graphs of Velvia 50 noise overstate the problem with film
    noise.

    >> Oops: you've redone that figure since the last time I looked. Still, I
    >> think
    >> you are way overstating 35mm Velvia. It really takes 6x7 before you see
    >> more detail from film than from 12MP digital.

    >
    > Remember the Figure 1 plot is only spatial resolution, and breaks
    > down into two components: luminance resolution and color resolution.
    > The bottom of the vertical bar for each film is the luminance
    > megapixel equivalent and for Provia 100, that is 8 megapixels.
    > But bayer sensors have lower color resolution, so your quoting
    > the 12 megapixel number is for color resolution. Most of the
    > effect that you see in a typical image is luminance resolution.


    Well, yes. The human eye's color resolution is a tiny fraction of its
    luminance resolution, so you are reporting effects that can't be seen...

    > Then, second, again it depends on your scanner. I used multiple
    > scanners in my research including high-end drum scanners.


    I've not seen anything anywhere near a factor of two difference in
    information captured between 4000 ppi Nikon scanners and drum scanners. Of
    course, the drum scanner fans do, but it looks to me that they're
    halucinating.

    >>>read the Apparent Image Quality section. There you will see I
    >>>rate an 8-megapixel DSLR well above both velvia and provia 35mm film.

    >>
    >> Well, if you didn't start out by calling it at 14MP, then I wouldn't
    >> grump.
    >>
    >> The problem is that film has a long "tail" in its response; it can record
    >> extremely high contrast detail way out to insane lp/mm levels, but does
    >> very
    >> badly at lower contrast images. In my (and others) tests of 6x7 Provia
    >> vs.
    >> the 12MP cameras, 6x7 nails the fine high-contrast detail that the 5D is
    >> just beginning to lose it on, but the rest of the image is a toss-up.
    >> I've found that for portraits, it is incredibly critical to fill the
    >> frame with the subject with film. Standing back a bit to take in some of
    >> the context is simply not an option. Because film is so grody for
    >> low-contrast parts of the image.

    >
    > Again you seem focused on Figure 1.


    It's the first thing that appears in the article. It's hard not to<g>.

    > Try focusing on the table in the
    > AIQ section. Perhaps I need to make that data into a picture. I'm slowly
    > learning that photographers can't seem to comprehend numbers; they
    > need a picture ;-).
    >
    >> In other words, Velvia/Provia are only "14MP" for street signs and
    >> license
    >> plates. For everything else, they're not even 8MP.

    >
    > And if you looked at the AIQ table, you would see I agree:
    > 35mm Velvia 50 has an AIQ = 14; 8 MPixel DSLR = 38 at ISO 100,
    > over twice as good.


    That's more reasonable.

    <SNIP>

    I don't like not being able to walk up to a print and see more detail, and
    your examples of higher resolution scans didn't convince me that more
    information was coming off the film at higher resolutions; sure, the grain
    structure was being resolved better but I thought the claims for more
    subject detail were problematic. Again, all the experience here is that
    13x19 from 6x7 is way better than 11x14 from 35mm. So talking about 24x36
    prints from 35mm sounds rather odd to me.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, May 25, 2006
    #11
  12. arifi

    Bryan Olson Guest

    arifi wrote:
    > Just at my final step for the purchase of the Minolta Dimage Scan Elite
    > II, I need some clarification on resolution values: DPI vs Megapixels.[...]


    > Now, should this calculation mean that a good slide + scanning with
    > this scanner will be equivalent to shooting with a 10MP full-frame 35mm
    > DSLR ? How would the results compare to the line of current 8MP
    > not-full-frame DSLRs and would results be comparable to those off an
    > EOS 5D (which has a 12.8 MP 35mm full-frame sensor) by any criteria?


    The Imaging Resource has some actual samples from that scanner:

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/DSEII/DSEIIPICS.HTM

    And of course there's no shortage of samples from from the various
    digital cameras for comparison.

    My opinion: 35mm scanning is for people with collections of slides
    and negatives that they want to bring into the digital world. For
    new images, a digital camera is the way to go.

    A few years ago I tried scanning film. What a drag. Life is too
    short to spend the hours in that tedious repetitive process.


    --
    --Bryan
    Bryan Olson, May 25, 2006
    #12
  13. Bryan Olson <> wrote:
    >
    > My opinion: 35mm scanning is for people with collections of slides
    > and negatives that they want to bring into the digital world. For
    > new images, a digital camera is the way to go.
    >
    > A few years ago I tried scanning film. What a drag. Life is too
    > short to spend the hours in that tedious repetitive process.
    >


    I sort of disagree. I like to shoot both film (Fuji slide film mostly) and
    digital. I tend to get greater satisfaction out of many of the pictures that
    I have taken on film. The catch is that the turn around on development is
    either long in duration or quite expensive ($10 + shipping is too much for a
    single roll of film .. $4 at Costco/Qualex ... but they tend to damage my
    slides (recent roll had hook holes in two slides ... but they blamed it on the
    condition it arrived in ... how did it get holes when still in the
    cartridge!! -- at least they included a note)). I put the slides on a small
    light box and decide if any are worthy of scanning and if so .. I scan only
    those.

    In general though, the image quality from my D70 is really about as good as
    that of slide film for most purposes (I can definitely get more detail from
    the slide film when scanned at 4000 dpi on my Coolscan V).

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 25, 2006
    #13
    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. DS

    Should File DPI Match Printer DPI?

    DS, Jul 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    556
  2. Bill Hilton

    39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ...

    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    319
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 18, 2005
  3. Boooger

    96 dpi x 96 dpi?

    Boooger, Nov 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,207
    Bill Hilton
    Nov 29, 2005
  4. OL'Hippie

    DPI,Megapixels and print size

    OL'Hippie, Feb 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    457
    Don Stauffer
    Feb 22, 2006
  5. Richard H.

    Viewing Distance vs. DPI & Megapixels

    Richard H., Sep 2, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    5,585
    John Turco
    Sep 6, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page