Some Historical Questions Re Film Resolution, etc. ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bob, Oct 31, 2012.

  1. Bob

    Bob Guest

    Hi,

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

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

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

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

    Thanks,
    Bob
    Bob, Oct 31, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bob

    nospam Guest

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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

    note that this chart from the link above stops at 20 mp.
    <http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/film.vs.di
    gital.35mm-d.gif>

    24 mp is now entry level and the nikon d800 has 36 mp.
    nospam, Nov 1, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bob

    Rob Guest

    On 1/11/2012 11:06 AM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <k6sc10$c55$>, Bob <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Is it true that a "high resolution" photo emulsion like perhaps the
    >> "old" Ektachrome (might not be the best example) had a much higher
    >> inherent resolution capability than, e.g., a typical CCD imager that
    >> might be used today in a high quality camera ?

    >
    > long ago it did, but definitely not anymore. digital well surpasses
    > film.
    >
    >> If so, equivalent to how good a CCD, or what is a good way of
    >> understanding this ?
    >> Any thoughts on would be appreciated.

    >
    > more info than you probably want to know:
    > <http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html>
    >
    >> And, are there any specialized applications these days where film is

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

    >
    > something like tech pan film maybe, but even that no longer has much of
    > an advantage anymore.
    >
    > note that this chart from the link above stops at 20 mp.
    > <http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/film.vs.di
    > gital.35mm-d.gif>
    >
    > 24 mp is now entry level and the nikon d800 has 36 mp.
    >


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

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

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

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

    using film requires using an enlarger (mixing box or condenser lenses
    and wet chemicals to obtain the intended results.
    Rob, Nov 1, 2012
    #3
  4. Bob

    Wally Guest

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

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


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

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

    W
    Wally, Nov 1, 2012
    #4
  5. In article <>,
    Wally <> wrote:
    >On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:25:15 -0400, Bob <> wrote:
    >
    >>And, are there any specialized applications these days where film is
    >>still the preferred choice ?
    >>Which ?
    >>Why ?

    >
    >Digital gear doesn't do well at temps below freezing. But film gear
    >does great when it's real cold. Pentax Spotmatics used to be famous
    >for their performance under arctic conditions. So film might be
    >preferred if you have to shoot at -40 deg C (same as -40 F for US
    >people).
    >
    >I don't know what arctic explorers actually use, though -- maybe
    >digital with battery packs inside their coats.
    >
    >W


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

    In fact, the last chest X-Ray I got, about a year ago was still on film.
    The tech said that yes, new ones would be digital, but the turnaround
    was fast enough that there wasn't any big incentive to switch before
    the lifespan of the unit.
    --
    ------
    columbiaclosings.com
    What's not in Columbia anymore..
    (Ted Nolan, Nov 1, 2012
    #5
  6. Bob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Wally
    <> wrote:

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


    nonsense. digital works just fine in below freezing temperatures.

    batteries might need to be kept warm, but that's about it.
    nospam, Nov 1, 2012
    #6
  7. Bob

    nospam Guest

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

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


    dental x-rays have been digital for years. you clench a sensor instead
    of a film holder. they're not only faster, but also much better
    quality.
    nospam, Nov 1, 2012
    #7
  8. In article <311020122246152307%>,
    nospam <> wrote:
    >In article <>, Ted Nolan <tednolan>
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> Dental X-Rays, I think. You have to clench a little film-holder between
    >> your teeth. It doesn't seem like making a sensor like that would be
    >> worthwhile.

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


    Interesting. I guess I'll see that next upgrade, but I haven't seen it yet.
    --
    ------
    columbiaclosings.com
    What's not in Columbia anymore..
    (Ted Nolan, Nov 1, 2012
    #8
  9. Bob

    Martin Brown Guest

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

    > Which ?
    > Why ?


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

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

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Nov 1, 2012
    #9
  10. Bob

    DanP Guest

    On Thursday, November 1, 2012 5:25:09 AM UTC, Wally wrote:
    > On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:25:15 -0400, Bob <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > >And, are there any specialized applications these days where film is

    >
    > >still the preferred choice ?

    >
    > >Which ?

    >
    > >Why ?

    >
    >
    >
    > Digital gear doesn't do well at temps below freezing. But film gear
    >
    > does great when it's real cold. Pentax Spotmatics used to be famous
    >
    > for their performance under arctic conditions. So film might be
    >
    > preferred if you have to shoot at -40 deg C (same as -40 F for US
    >
    > people).
    >
    >
    >
    > I don't know what arctic explorers actually use, though -- maybe
    >
    > digital with battery packs inside their coats.
    >
    >
    >
    > W


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

    DanP
    DanP, Nov 1, 2012
    #10
  11. Bob

    DanP Guest

    On Wednesday, October 31, 2012 11:25:21 PM UTC, Bob wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    >
    >
    > Just an amateur photographer, very amateur, but was wondering about the
    >
    > following:
    >
    >
    >
    > Is it true that a "high resolution" photo emulsion like perhaps the
    >
    > "old" Ektachrome (might not be the best example) had a much higher
    >
    > inherent resolution capability than, e.g., a typical CCD imager that
    >
    > might be used today in a high quality camera ?


    Might be, but I doubt you that will ever matter to you.
    I shoot film once in a while cause I like the old look of it.

    Unless you use good lenses and expensive film scanners you will not get the best of film. Even if you do, comparing pictures taken with the same sensor size you will not get better resolution, only nicer looks for highlights and shadows.

    Moneywise digital makes sense in the long run, if you want to use film do it only if you want a few good shots. And if you want to use film use medium format.


    DanP
    DanP, Nov 1, 2012
    #11
  12. Bob

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 01/11/2012 10:33, bugbear wrote:
    > Wally wrote:
    >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 19:25:15 -0400, Bob<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> And, are there any specialized applications these days where film is
    >>> still the preferred choice ?
    >>> Which ?
    >>> Why ?

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

    >
    > Which part of "digital" is vulnerable? - astronomers use sensors that


    The batteries. Electrolyte freezes at about -25C. Nominal capacity is
    reduced by a factor of two for 0C vs 20C ambient and 8x at -20C. eg

    http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/alkaline_appman.pdf

    Temperature effects graph (fig 5)

    Leakage can result if the batteries do actually freeze solid.

    > are deliberately
    > cooled.
    >
    > http://www.flicamera.com/microline/index.html
    >
    > Built in cooling to -70 c.


    Most scientific low noise cameras are cooled to control thermal noise,
    but they are also tethered to a large external power supply as well.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Nov 1, 2012
    #12
  13. Bob

    Bruce Guest

    Eric Stevens <> wrote:

    >I had a digital chest X-Ray about 10 years ago.



    You have a digital chest?

    My chest dates from 1954 and is very definitely analogue. ;-)
    Bruce, Nov 1, 2012
    #13
  14. Bob

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, November 1, 2012 12:06:28 AM UTC, nospam wrote:
    > In article <k6sc10$c55$>, Bob <>
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Is it true that a "high resolution" photo emulsion like perhaps the

    >
    > > "old" Ektachrome (might not be the best example) had a much higher

    >
    > > inherent resolution capability than, e.g., a typical CCD imager that

    >
    > > might be used today in a high quality camera ?

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


    A friend of mine has been asked to give a talk on the advantages of large format film photography over digital. One example wass the work of... can't remmerber the photographers name something like susy wang who specialises in using 10X8 film with those bellows cameras, of course part of the 'advantage' I guess is depth of field which has nothing to do with the film, and being able to perspecitve shift.
    Wish I could remmeber her name but there was controvery about her taking photos of her naked/semi clothed children around 10 years ago, she's americanAFAIK.
    Whisky-dave, Nov 1, 2012
    #14
  15. On 11/1/2012 2:05 AM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
    > In article <311020122246152307%>,
    > nospam <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, Ted Nolan <tednolan>
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Dental X-Rays, I think. You have to clench a little film-holder between
    >>> your teeth. It doesn't seem like making a sensor like that would be
    >>> worthwhile.

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

    >
    > Interesting. I guess I'll see that next upgrade, but I haven't seen it yet.
    >

    Digital dental x-ray machines are by no means universal. My regular
    dentist is old fashioned but the surgeon who did my implants two years
    ago has digital equipment.

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
    James Silverton, Nov 1, 2012
    #15
  16. Bob

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, November 1, 2012 12:49:30 PM UTC, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    > >> Which part of "digital" is vulnerable? - astronomers use sensors that

    >
    > >

    >
    > >The batteries. Electrolyte freezes at about

    >
    > >-25C. Nominal capacity is reduced by a factor of two for

    >
    > >0C vs 20C ambient and 8x at -20C. eg

    >
    >
    >
    > Which electrolyte freezes at -25C? That's -13F, and
    >
    > hardly even cold!


    Weather ( ;-) ) or not they freeze isn;t really the point
    their values will change as do resistors and virtually all components.

    In fact pretty musch everything in the universe is affected by temerature.

    I order electronic parts and as an example
    http://www.rapidonline.com/Electron...Electrolytic-Capacitor-bag-of-300-Pcs-11-3908

    these capacitors have a rating of -55C to +80C
    Which doesn;t mean they'll stop working outsode those temeratures it's justthat they aren;t guarenteed to work or adhere to the stated characteristsics.
    One of teh reason PC Power suppies in the past have blown up is because they have got to warm and leak. Whicjh is why the 105C and 130C are useful but more expensive. I stock cheap capactiors with a minium temp is -20C.

    In most cases this doesn;t effect devices as they are useully warm than theenviorment they are in, unless of course left out for long periods.

    Even modern cars break down in cold weather.



    > I'm not sure about Li-ion batteries (and don't think it
    >
    > is worth the effort to look it up either), but those are
    >
    > just about the only batteries that I'd even think of
    >
    > using these days.


    For me it depends on the use I'm putting them to, as with most things


    >
    >
    >
    > >http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/alkaline_appman.pdf

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Temperature effects graph (fig 5)

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Leakage can result if the batteries do actually freeze solid.

    >
    >
    >
    > But who cares what the characteristics of alkaline
    >
    > batteries are! Granted they are better than zinc carbon
    >
    > cells, but...


    Those that use them perhaps.


    > >> are deliberately

    >
    > >> cooled.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> http://www.flicamera.com/microline/index.html

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> Built in cooling to -70 c.

    >
    > >

    >
    > >Most scientific low noise cameras are cooled to control

    >
    > >thermal noise, but they are also tethered to a large

    >
    > >external power supply as well.

    >
    >
    >
    > But the point was quite correct. The digital part of
    >
    > the camera is simply not affected by cold.


    yes it can be just like everything else.
    Whether otr not it'll stop working at -10 -50 or -100 depends
    on what's in it.




    > A film
    >
    > camera is to a significant degree simply because there
    >
    > has to be movement of the film, and film is very brittle
    >
    > at -40, never mind -57C.


    I'm pretty sure I've seen pictures of the artic before the invention of thedigital camera, taken using film , even moving pictures.



    >
    >
    >
    > In any case all modern cameras require electronics for
    >
    > control, and the electronics is not affected by even the
    >
    > cold of deep space much less typical Arctic temperatures.


    Yes they are, look at some electronic devices.

    http://uk.rs-online.com/web/p/micro...2267573743D3639362D323434332677633D4E4F4E4526

    I order 10 of these a week or so ago they will work as expected between -40and +80C there's no guarenteen that they'll work outside these temetatures..
    Theer used to be a range of military spec devices which had extended temerature ranges.

    >
    >
    >
    > The only part of a digital camera that is affected are
    >
    > batteries,


    They are one of the weakest links, but even the lubricants used can freeze.

    > and that is a simple matter of heating that
    >
    > one single part. It's not exactly difficult. For
    >
    > typical use with average cameras just switching between
    >
    > a set of two batteries is sufficient, keeping one in a
    >
    > warm inside pocket with the other is in the camera.


    Or just keeping under your coat or near you.

    When using a camera it's unlikely that you'll be in condition s below -50 anyway
    but to claim digitsal camera arent; affect by temrature is a false statement.
    LCDs can freeze too, I've put one in my freezer -18 and it wnet black in places and no longer worked.



    >
    >
    >
    > For other uses there are generally two approaches. One
    >
    > is to have an oversized battery that will still provide
    >
    > sufficient discharge rate when cold. Another is to have
    >
    > some other external source of power which can be used
    >
    > either to power the camera directly or to heat the
    >
    > batteries.


    A battery could heat itself that how the previous rover batteires worked.

    of course the newer curiosity has a 2KW nuclear battery and that still has to heat up electronics to keep them in spec.


    >
    >
    >
    > Incidentally, motor vehicles are a great example of how
    >
    > batteries are commonly used in Arctic environments.
    >
    > Worst case is putting a small trickle charger (or a 25
    >
    > watt heater which is not as effective) on the battery
    >
    > and plugging it in when the vehicle is parked. When it
    >
    > is operating the charge/discharge current keeps it quite
    >
    > warm enough, and the high acid content of the
    >
    > electrolyte prevents it from freezing unless it is totally
    >
    > discharged.


    Yet cars break down in cold weather, see the problem we have in london as soon as winter bites.


    >
    > Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
    >
    > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Whisky-dave, Nov 1, 2012
    #16
  17. On 11/1/2012 9:07 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson says...
    >>> Digital cameras do vastly better in the cold than film
    >>> does, if for no other reason than that film has to move,
    >>> and it commonly breaks in the process.

    >>
    >> The only issue could be the batteries. Are there batteries suitable for
    >> very low temperatures (well below 0°C)?

    >
    > Li-ion batteries are pretty good, and certainly work
    > well below freezing.
    >
    > But batteries are part of both digital and film cameras. And
    > dealing with batteries is just a matter of using the right
    > methods, not a question of if it can be done or not.
    >
    > Shooting film at anything colder than about -40 is not fun.
    >

    I don't suppose that using a point-and-shoot in below zero conditions is
    all that much fun. I would expect the camera (and battery) would cool
    off in seconds even it was kept in a vehicle or a deep pocket before
    use. I wonder how you handle the zoom and focusing motors?

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
    James Silverton, Nov 1, 2012
    #17
  18. Bob

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, November 1, 2012 3:08:11 PM UTC, James Silverton wrote:
    > On 11/1/2012 9:07 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >
    > > Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    >
    > >> In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson says...

    >
    > >>> Digital cameras do vastly better in the cold than film

    >
    > >>> does, if for no other reason than that film has to move,

    >
    > >>> and it commonly breaks in the process.

    >
    > >>

    >
    > >> The only issue could be the batteries. Are there batteries suitable for

    >
    > >> very low temperatures (well below 0°C)?

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Li-ion batteries are pretty good, and certainly work

    >
    > > well below freezing.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > But batteries are part of both digital and film cameras. And

    >
    > > dealing with batteries is just a matter of using the right

    >
    > > methods, not a question of if it can be done or not.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > Shooting film at anything colder than about -40 is not fun.

    >
    > >

    >
    > I don't suppose that using a point-and-shoot in below zero conditions is
    >
    > all that much fun. I would expect the camera (and battery) would cool
    >
    > off in seconds even it was kept in a vehicle or a deep pocket before
    >
    > use. I wonder how you handle the zoom and focusing motors?


    I doubt even having sex with a supermodel (or chosen partner) is much fun at -40C but a friend of mine and his wife went to that Ice hotel on a wedding aniversary, perhaps I should ask them.

    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
    >
    >
    >
    > Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
    Whisky-dave, Nov 1, 2012
    #18
  19. On 11/1/2012 2:16 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > James Silverton <> wrote:
    >> On 11/1/2012 9:07 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >>> Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >>>> In article <>, Floyd L. Davidson says...
    >>>>> Digital cameras do vastly better in the cold than film
    >>>>> does, if for no other reason than that film has to move,
    >>>>> and it commonly breaks in the process.
    >>>>
    >>>> The only issue could be the batteries. Are there batteries suitable for
    >>>> very low temperatures (well below 0°C)?
    >>>
    >>> Li-ion batteries are pretty good, and certainly work
    >>> well below freezing.
    >>>
    >>> But batteries are part of both digital and film cameras. And
    >>> dealing with batteries is just a matter of using the right
    >>> methods, not a question of if it can be done or not.
    >>>
    >>> Shooting film at anything colder than about -40 is not fun.
    >>>

    >> I don't suppose that using a point-and-shoot in below
    >> zero conditions is all that much fun. I would expect the
    >> camera (and battery) would cool off in seconds even it
    >> was kept in a vehicle or a deep pocket before use. I
    >> wonder how you handle the zoom and focusing motors?

    >
    > Well, the idea that "below zero" is not much fun is sort
    > of hilarious! Really. Life is actually a lot of fun if
    > it gets significantly below zero. Only a few degrees
    > below freezing isn't enough. The best temps are roughly
    > from about 15F to -20F, or roughly -10C to -30C. It's
    > only At -20F/-30C that things begin to be difficult, and
    > at -30F/-35C it is dangerous for the inexperienced. At
    > -40 doing almost anything becomes serious work, and
    > colder than about -57C or -70F it's best to just do
    > nothing (things break at that temperature, just from
    > being brittle).
    >
    > At 0F or -18C everything freezes down very nicely, and
    > the world for the most part is dry. That makes
    > everything fun, and safe. (Right at freezing temperatures
    > are very dangerous, because getting wet will kill you.)
    >
    > Little Point&Shoot cameras don't freeze up in seconds,
    > though. They usually last for many minutes. It depends
    > on whether there is much wind or not. Generally that
    > means a camera kept in a shirt pocket, and inner pocket
    > of a parka, can be whipped out and used to get many
    > images of something particular before it has to be
    > rewarmed.
    >
    > Warmer temperatures, with the possibility of liquid
    > water, can be a lot more trouble. For example if snows
    > gets on a warm camera and water droplets form on moving
    > parts such as a focus ring or zooming barrel on the
    > camera those parts may stop working when the water cools
    > and freezes.
    >
    > But generally today the moving parts of a camera are not
    > a problem. Water replacing lubricants were developed
    > back in the 1980's, and virtually all cameras have
    > Arctic grade lubrication these days. (30 years ago to
    > use a film camera at -40 or colder required the
    > lubricants be removed because the became solid when
    > cold. Canon and Nikon would do that, but it of course
    > voided the warranty and the camera would wear out
    > significantly quicker than normal.)
    >
    > Of course with global warming we just don't see a lot
    > of -40 any more... The current temperature in Barrow
    > right now is 25F/-4C. There is no ice on the ocean.
    >


    Not that I'm likely to have the opportunity to work even at below 0°F,
    but thanks for the information.

    --
    Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

    Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
    James Silverton, Nov 1, 2012
    #19
  20. In article <k6sc10$c55$>, Bob <>
    wrote:

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


    If you compare film that's been trimmed to the same size as the typical
    CCD imager, the CCD has had considerably more resolution than film for
    quite a while now. But you can still easily buy cameras that use 4"x5"
    or 8"x10" film, and the total resolution will be far higher in the film.
    I used to regularly scan 35mm Fuji Velvia and get an 18M image with no
    grain. Plus that was a full color 18M, no Bayer mask and interpolation
    involved. Almost every other film that I scanned to that resolution
    showed considerable grain.
    Mark Storkamp, Nov 1, 2012
    #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:
    533
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    666
  3. D Garber

    Historical DVD's?

    D Garber, Mar 6, 2005, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    448
    Alpha
    Mar 6, 2005
  4. Progressiveabsolution

    Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography

    Progressiveabsolution, Mar 23, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    630
    Frank ess
    Mar 24, 2005
  5. Progressiveabsolution
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    716
    Alfred Molon
    Sep 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page