MegaPixel rating of 'old fashioned' film

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ChrisM, Oct 17, 2007.

  1. ChrisM

    ChrisM Guest

    Hi,
    Just wondering what the 'resolution' of (say) ISO100 colour film would be
    equivelent to in MegaPixels?
    I realise that it will depend on the quality of the film, just looking for a
    ballpark figure.

    --
    Regards,
    Chris.
    (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
    ChrisM, Oct 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ChrisM

    tomm42 Guest

    On Oct 17, 7:19 am, "ChrisM" <> wrote:
    > Hi,
    > Just wondering what the 'resolution' of (say) ISO100 colour film would be
    > equivelent to in MegaPixels?
    > I realise that it will depend on the quality of the film, just looking for a
    > ballpark figure.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Chris.
    > (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)


    This is a tough answer, many have said film should have a megapixel
    rating of 100-300mp depending who's talking. But Kodak claims a 6mp
    DSLR effectively equals or surpasses 35mm film. I have seen a 6mp
    Kodak DSLR beat a Mamiya 645 hands down, but I have also seen film
    images digital cameras would have a hard time equally, very difficult
    question. The structure of film and a digital sensor are not easy to
    equate.
    One thing I do know that in 7 years of printing commercially digital
    images do enlarge better than film. It is risky to try a 16x20 from
    all but the best 35mm frame, while I can use just very good images
    from my APS DSLR and do 16x24 that turn heads, at 8x10 the image
    quality is a toss up.

    Tom
    tomm42, Oct 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ChrisM

    Asle Bjerva Guest

    tomm42 wrote:
    > On Oct 17, 7:19 am, "ChrisM" <> wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >> Just wondering what the 'resolution' of (say) ISO100 colour film
    >> would be equivelent to in MegaPixels?
    >> I realise that it will depend on the quality of the film, just
    >> looking for a ballpark figure.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Regards,
    >> Chris.
    >> (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

    >
    > This is a tough answer, many have said film should have a megapixel
    > rating of 100-300mp depending who's talking. But Kodak claims a 6mp
    > DSLR effectively equals or surpasses 35mm film. I have seen a 6mp
    > Kodak DSLR beat a Mamiya 645 hands down, but I have also seen film
    > images digital cameras would have a hard time equally, very difficult
    > question. The structure of film and a digital sensor are not easy to
    > equate.
    > One thing I do know that in 7 years of printing commercially digital
    > images do enlarge better than film. It is risky to try a 16x20 from
    > all but the best 35mm frame, while I can use just very good images
    > from my APS DSLR and do 16x24 that turn heads, at 8x10 the image
    > quality is a toss up.
    >
    > Tom


    Try this page .
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

    --
    AsleB;Oslo;Norway
    Asle Bjerva, Oct 17, 2007
    #3
  4. ChrisM

    ChrisM Guest

    In message ,
    tomm42 <> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

    > On Oct 17, 7:19 am, "ChrisM" <> wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >> Just wondering what the 'resolution' of (say) ISO100 colour film
    >> would be equivelent to in MegaPixels?
    >> I realise that it will depend on the quality of the film, just
    >> looking for a ballpark figure.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Regards,
    >> Chris.
    >> (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

    >
    > This is a tough answer, many have said film should have a megapixel
    > rating of 100-300mp depending who's talking. But Kodak claims a 6mp
    > DSLR effectively equals or surpasses 35mm film. I have seen a 6mp
    > Kodak DSLR beat a Mamiya 645 hands down, but I have also seen film
    > images digital cameras would have a hard time equally, very difficult
    > question. The structure of film and a digital sensor are not easy to
    > equate.
    > One thing I do know that in 7 years of printing commercially digital
    > images do enlarge better than film. It is risky to try a 16x20 from
    > all but the best 35mm frame, while I can use just very good images
    > from my APS DSLR and do 16x24 that turn heads, at 8x10 the image
    > quality is a toss up.
    >
    > Tom


    So basically, no simple answer... thought that might be the case.
    Thanks for you informative and interesting response though Tom.

    --
    Regards,
    Chris.
    (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
    ChrisM, Oct 17, 2007
    #4
  5. ChrisM

    Summer Wind Guest

    "ChrisM" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message ,
    > tomm42 <> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
    >
    >
    > So basically, no simple answer... thought that might be the case.
    > Thanks for you informative and interesting response though Tom.
    >


    It's easier to think in terms of the maximum size of the enlargements you
    can make from a given film versus a particular digital file size. You can
    make an excellent 11x14 inch enlargement from 35mm, 100 ISO Fuji Reala, and
    that film will yield a respectable 16x20. You can only get an 8x10 from a
    6.1-MP camera. An 11x14 from an 8-MP camera is really pushing it. A 12-MP
    camera will produce a top-notch 11X14 and an 16-MP file can be printed at
    16x20. Medium format film far surpasses 16-MP, reaching the equivalent of
    around 40-MP.

    Some posters here will claim that they can make 16x20 enlargements from
    their aging 6.1-MP DSLRs, but they neglect to mention that they look like
    hell. To get an enlargement of that size from a 6.1-MP file, upsampling is
    required, a process that adds pixels but not detail.

    SW
    Summer Wind, Oct 17, 2007
    #5
  6. ChrisM

    ChrisM Guest

    In message ,
    Asle Bjerva <> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

    > tomm42 wrote:
    >> On Oct 17, 7:19 am, "ChrisM" <> wrote:
    >>> Hi,
    >>> Just wondering what the 'resolution' of (say) ISO100 colour film
    >>> would be equivelent to in MegaPixels?
    >>> I realise that it will depend on the quality of the film, just
    >>> looking for a ballpark figure.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Regards,
    >>> Chris.
    >>> (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

    >>
    >> This is a tough answer, many have said film should have a megapixel
    >> rating of 100-300mp depending who's talking. But Kodak claims a 6mp
    >> DSLR effectively equals or surpasses 35mm film. I have seen a 6mp
    >> Kodak DSLR beat a Mamiya 645 hands down, but I have also seen film
    >> images digital cameras would have a hard time equally, very difficult
    >> question. The structure of film and a digital sensor are not easy to
    >> equate.
    >> One thing I do know that in 7 years of printing commercially digital
    >> images do enlarge better than film. It is risky to try a 16x20 from
    >> all but the best 35mm frame, while I can use just very good images
    >> from my APS DSLR and do 16x24 that turn heads, at 8x10 the image
    >> quality is a toss up.
    >>
    >> Tom

    >
    > Try this page .
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html


    Blimey!! Well, I guess I DID ask... TBH in the absence of a simple answer,
    that was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for,

    Thanks for that, I will try and work my way through it all, and hopefully
    come out the other end with a better idea.


    --
    Regards,
    Chris.
    (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
    ChrisM, Oct 17, 2007
    #6
  7. ChrisM

    Scott W Guest

    ChrisM wrote:
    > Hi,
    > Just wondering what the 'resolution' of (say) ISO100 colour film would be
    > equivelent to in MegaPixels?
    > I realise that it will depend on the quality of the film, just looking for a
    > ballpark figure.
    >


    Lots of people have ideas about this and the numbers you hear can go
    anywhere from 35mm film being the same as 2MP all that way to 100MP. A
    lot depends on what film is used and how it is processed and printed.
    From what I have seen ISO 100 film has a hard time matching a 6-8 MP
    DSLR in its look of sharpness. Film can capture finer detail, but only
    if it is very high contrast, which is not what an average scene is.

    IMO the best thing to do is look at tests where people have taken the
    time to directly compare the two, here are a couple of links of just
    that thing.
    <http://www.ales.litomisky.com/projects/Analog%20versus%20Digital%20Shootout%20(Hasselblad,%2035mm,%20Canon%205D).htm>
    <http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/>

    Scott
    Scott W, Oct 17, 2007
    #7
  8. ChrisM wrote on Wed, 17 Oct 2007 13:24:19 +0100:

    ??>> On Oct 17, 7:19 am, "ChrisM"
    ??>> <> wrote:
    ??>>> Hi,
    ??>>> Just wondering what the 'resolution' of (say) ISO100
    ??>>> colour film would be equivelent to in MegaPixels? I
    ??>>> realise that it will depend on the quality of the film,
    ??>>> just looking for a ballpark figure.
    ??>>>
    ??>>
    ??>> This is a tough answer, many have said film should have a
    ??>> megapixel rating of 100-300mp depending who's talking. But
    ??>> Kodak claims a 6mp DSLR effectively equals or surpasses
    ??>> 35mm film. I have seen a 6mp Kodak DSLR beat a Mamiya 645
    ??>> hands down, but I have also seen film images digital
    ??>> cameras would have a hard time equally, very
    ??>> difficult question. The structure of film and a digital
    ??>> sensor are not easy to equate. One thing I do know that in
    ??>> 7 years of printing commercially digital images do enlarge
    ??>> better than film. It is risky to try a 16x20 from all but
    ??>> the best 35mm frame, while I can use just very good images
    ??>> from my APS DSLR and do 16x24 that turn heads, at 8x10 the
    ??>> image quality is a toss up.
    ??>>
    ??>> Tom

    C> So basically, no simple answer... thought that might be the
    C> case. Thanks for you informative and interesting response
    C> though Tom.

    I see that emotion enters this discussion a little later but
    there is one major difference between film and digital sensors
    in that pixels are identical in size and silver chloride
    crystals have a range of sizes. I can certainly see why
    enlargements might look different tho' not necessarily better or
    worse.

    James Silverton
    Potomac, Maryland

    E-mail, with obvious alterations:
    not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
    James Silverton, Oct 17, 2007
    #8
  9. "Summer Wind" <> wrote:
    > "ChrisM" <> wrote:
    >> tomm42 <> Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
    >>
    >> So basically, no simple answer... thought that might be the case.
    >> Thanks for you informative and interesting response though Tom.

    >
    > It's easier to think in terms of the maximum size of the enlargements you
    > can make from a given film versus a particular digital file size. You can
    > make an excellent 11x14 inch enlargement from 35mm,


    Not if you've ever seen an 11x14 from 645...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 17, 2007
    #9
  10. You have read the estimates and they are not bad, but in reality you are
    talking about apples and oranges. It is not possible to get a number that
    everyone will agree with. My suggestion is to try both ways and see what
    works for you in the situation you are concerned about.

    "ChrisM" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    > Just wondering what the 'resolution' of (say) ISO100 colour film would be
    > equivelent to in MegaPixels?
    > I realise that it will depend on the quality of the film, just looking for
    > a ballpark figure.
    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Chris.
    > (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
    >


    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia 's Muire duit
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 17, 2007
    #10
  11. ChrisM

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:19:38 +0100, ChrisM wrote:

    > Hi,
    > Just wondering what the 'resolution' of (say) ISO100 colour film would be
    > equivelent to in MegaPixels?
    > I realise that it will depend on the quality of the film, just looking for a
    > ballpark figure.


    FWIW - I've seen several sources claim that 35mm film is roughtly
    equivalent to 20mp.
    ray, Oct 17, 2007
    #11
  12. ChrisM

    Scott W Guest

    Joseph Meehan wrote:
    > You have read the estimates and they are not bad, but in reality you
    > are talking about apples and oranges. It is not possible to get a
    > number that everyone will agree with. My suggestion is to try both
    > ways and see what works for you in the situation you are concerned about.
    >


    Probably the best advice in the thread.

    Scott
    Scott W, Oct 17, 2007
    #12
  13. Joseph Meehan wrote:
    > You have read the estimates and they are not bad, but in reality you
    > are talking about apples and oranges. It is not possible to get a
    > number that everyone will agree with.


    This is usenet, so there's nothing everyone will agree with!

    And the estimates far in excess of 20 MP /are/ bad.

    > My suggestion is to try both
    > ways and see what works for you in the situation you are concerned about.


    to the O.P. Could you re-state why you pose the question in order to
    better answer?

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Oct 17, 2007
    #13
  14. ray wrote:
    > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:19:38 +0100, ChrisM wrote:
    >
    >> Hi,
    >> Just wondering what the 'resolution' of (say) ISO100 colour film would be
    >> equivelent to in MegaPixels?
    >> I realise that it will depend on the quality of the film, just looking for a
    >> ballpark figure.

    >
    > FWIW - I've seen several sources claim that 35mm film is roughtly
    > equivalent to 20mp.
    >

    But they'd be wrong....
    John McWilliams, Oct 17, 2007
    #14
  15. ChrisM

    Summer Wind Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >> It's easier to think in terms of the maximum size of the enlargements you
    >> can make from a given film versus a particular digital file size. You
    >> can make an excellent 11x14 inch enlargement from 35mm,

    >
    > Not if you've ever seen an 11x14 from 645...
    >


    I've seen 11x14 enlargements from all film formats. It's a given that
    quality increases with negative size.

    SW
    Summer Wind, Oct 17, 2007
    #15
  16. ChrisM

    Summer Wind Guest

    "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:19:38 +0100, ChrisM wrote:
    >
    >
    > FWIW - I've seen several sources claim that 35mm film is roughtly
    > equivalent to 20mp.


    That seems to be the consensus among experts regarding 100 ISO 35mm color
    film. In the B&W world, T-Max 100 is higher in terms of its MP equivalency
    and capacity for enlargement.

    SW
    Summer Wind, Oct 17, 2007
    #16
  17. ChrisM

    Summer Wind Guest

    "tomm42" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Oct 17, 7:19 am, "ChrisM" <> wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >> Just wondering what the 'resolution' of (say) ISO100 colour film would be
    >> equivelent to in MegaPixels?
    >> I realise that it will depend on the quality of the film, just looking
    >> for a
    >> ballpark figure.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Regards,
    >> Chris.
    >> (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

    >
    > This is a tough answer, many have said film should have a megapixel
    > rating of 100-300mp depending who's talking. But Kodak claims a 6mp
    > DSLR effectively equals or surpasses 35mm film.


    Can you provide a link to a Kodak web page where that claim is made?

    SW
    Summer Wind, Oct 17, 2007
    #17
  18. Summer Wind wrote:
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>> It's easier to think in terms of the maximum size of the enlargements you
    >>> can make from a given film versus a particular digital file size. You
    >>> can make an excellent 11x14 inch enlargement from 35mm,

    >> Not if you've ever seen an 11x14 from 645...
    >>

    >
    > I've seen 11x14 enlargements from all film formats. It's a given that
    > quality increases with negative size.


    Er, /only/ if all other things are equal. And generally, they are not.
    Same with sensors. Bigger doesn't always = better. Same with physical
    attributes.

    --
    John McWilliams
    John McWilliams, Oct 17, 2007
    #18
  19. Summer Wind wrote:
    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:19:38 +0100, ChrisM wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> FWIW - I've seen several sources claim that 35mm film is roughtly
    >> equivalent to 20mp.

    >
    > That seems to be the consensus among experts regarding 100 ISO 35mm color
    > film. In the B&W world, T-Max 100 is higher in terms of its MP equivalency
    > and capacity for enlargement.


    It's a thorny one, and under extreme conditions, that could be correct.
    But it's far off the mark, which is under 12 MP.

    And just who is in your "consensus"?

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Oct 17, 2007
    #19
  20. ChrisM

    EAL Guest

    On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 06:26:15 -1000, Scott W <>
    wrote:

    >Joseph Meehan wrote:
    >> You have read the estimates and they are not bad, but in reality you
    >> are talking about apples and oranges. It is not possible to get a
    >> number that everyone will agree with. My suggestion is to try both
    >> ways and see what works for you in the situation you are concerned about.
    >>

    >
    >Probably the best advice in the thread.


    Oh sure, spend many hours and much $$ to repeat what others have
    already done.

    Ed
    EAL, Oct 17, 2007
    #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. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    367
  2. Stormin Mormon

    Old fashioned battery tester

    Stormin Mormon, Mar 19, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,027
    GregS
    Mar 23, 2009
  3. tony cooper

    Re: How to get an "old fashioned" look?

    tony cooper, Jun 7, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    304
    PeterN
    Jun 30, 2011
  4. ASCII

    Re: How to get an "old fashioned" look?

    ASCII, Jun 7, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    291
    ASCII
    Jun 14, 2011
  5. John McWilliams

    Re: How to get an "old fashioned" look?

    John McWilliams, Jun 12, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    216
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jun 17, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page