PDA

View Full Version : Film size vs. Pixel count? Any research?



tc882000
10-08-2004, 08:00 PM
Have seen the obvious difference in quality between the same subject taken with my 35mm SLR and a friends Hasselblad. Any study ever been done as far as negative size in relation to pixel count as far as image quality? Eg. 35mm same as 2 megapixel, medium format same as 5 megapixel, something along those lines. Just something I was kind of curious about.

D70FAN
10-08-2004, 10:15 PM
Have seen the obvious difference in quality between the same subject taken with my 35mm SLR and a friends Hasselblad. Any study ever been done as far as negative size in relation to pixel count as far as image quality? Eg. 35mm same as 2 megapixel, medium format same as 5 megapixel, something along those lines. Just something I was kind of curious about.

If you go to google.com and enter "digital camera sensor size" you will get a plethora of information.

Here is a starting point:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0210/02100402sensorsizes.asp

John_Reed
10-08-2004, 10:50 PM
Have seen the obvious difference in quality between the same subject taken with my 35mm SLR and a friends Hasselblad. Any study ever been done as far as negative size in relation to pixel count as far as image quality? Eg. 35mm same as 2 megapixel, medium format same as 5 megapixel, something along those lines. Just something I was kind of curious about.I think you're asking: "How many pixels equate to a given film size for resolution?" Here's (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html) an article written a couple of years back on that subject.

tc882000
10-09-2004, 05:33 PM
Thanks John for direction to article. I know it's an older item but they talk about an 11 or 12 megapixel having the same resolution as 35mm film. Surely that does'nt mean the camera I'm looking at buying (Panasonic FZ-20, 5 megapixel) won't have the picture quality of my Pentax 35mm SLR or am I misunderstanding the article?

Rhys
10-09-2004, 07:32 PM
Thanks John for direction to article. I know it's an older item but they talk about an 11 or 12 megapixel having the same resolution as 35mm film. Surely that does'nt mean the camera I'm looking at buying (Panasonic FZ-20, 5 megapixel) won't have the picture quality of my Pentax 35mm SLR or am I misunderstanding the article?

Different films are capable of differing degrees of enlargement.

At the moment digital photos are nowhere near capable of being enlarged to the same size as Kodachrome 25. Having said that, as most people only print 35mm to 8 x 10 then 3 megapixels is fine.

John_Reed
10-09-2004, 10:56 PM
Thanks John for direction to article. I know it's an older item but they talk about an 11 or 12 megapixel having the same resolution as 35mm film. Surely that does'nt mean the camera I'm looking at buying (Panasonic FZ-20, 5 megapixel) won't have the picture quality of my Pentax 35mm SLR or am I misunderstanding the article?When people discuss image quality vis-a-vis printing, they usually calibrate digital images in terms of what size print they can create at 300 dpi. For an FZ20, with a 2560X1920 sensor, that translates into an 8.5X6.4 inch-squared print. Sounds pretty small; your Pentax could probably beat that, right? On the other hand, it's been demonstrated that the human eye can't really resolve (without a loupe or a microscope) any more than about 150 dpi. So, unless you're printing prints bigger than 17X12 inch-squared, your eye won't notice the difference. Moreover, there's also the phenomenon of interpolation, which allowed me to put up a very nice looking 13X19 printed image on my office wall, one which started from a 1600X1200 (2MP) image I took from my FZ1. So don't despair for the quality of the FZ20's images; it'll beat your Pentax cold for zoom range, white balance you can vary from frame to frame for different lighting conditions, and instant review of all images you just took. The FZ20 will make a better photographer out of you.

tc882000
10-10-2004, 11:31 AM
When people discuss image quality vis-a-vis printing, they usually calibrate digital images in terms of what size print they can create at 300 dpi. For an FZ20, with a 2560X1920 sensor, that translates into an 8.5X6.4 inch-squared print. Sounds pretty small; your Pentax could probably beat that, right? On the other hand, it's been demonstrated that the human eye can't really resolve (without a loupe or a microscope) any more than about 150 dpi. So, unless you're printing prints bigger than 17X12 inch-squared, your eye won't notice the difference. Moreover, there's also the phenomenon of interpolation, which allowed me to put up a very nice looking 13X19 printed image on my office wall, one which started from a 1600X1200 (2MP) image I took from my FZ1. So don't despair for the quality of the FZ20's images; it'll beat your Pentax cold for zoom range, white balance you can vary from frame to frame for different lighting conditions, and instant review of all images you just took. The FZ20 will make a better photographer out of you.
Thanks for the info John, looking forward to a whole new world of photography with the purchase of the FZ-20.

jlockard
01-06-2005, 07:47 AM
I know this thread is a little older, but I thought this info would be good to have in the forum.

There's an article on Photo.net called "Size Matters (http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/)" by Bob Atkins.

It goes beyond just sensor size and into lens quality and other issues...

-John

D70FAN
01-06-2005, 09:25 AM
I know this thread is a little older, but I thought this info would be good to have in the forum.

There's an article on Photo.net called "Size Matters (http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/)" by Bob Atkins.

It goes beyond just sensor size and into lens quality and other issues...

-John

Thanks John,

I have been looking for this article as a good reference point. I had it bookmarked, and lost it in a disk crash early last summer.

Thanks to Diskcopy I always have a full backup drive, but only backup the Favorites file about once a month.

Anyway, thanks again.