digital is reaching the 35mm film resolution

[Margus]

This post is not another film vs analog, pros and cons discussion. I was just curious about the maximum resolution of photos taken on a 35mm film and after some elementary math it turned out to be 13.5Mpixels. I don't know about you guys, but I was surprised that the megapixel race has only now taken us to the situation where the digital cameras are comparable with the 35mm film in terms of resolution.

Warning - math ahead! :D
If you want to verify the 13.5Mpixels resolution then here are some numbers for you:
- Maximum resolution of an ISO 100 film (Fujifilm Superia 100 (http://www.fujifilm.eu/products/analogue_photography/photographic_film/specification.html?index=10000000)) is 125 lines/mm
- Size of a picture on a 35mm film is 36x24mm

[BBPhoto]

While the argument is valid there are several well-sourced calculations out there that determine how many mega-pixels equal 35mm film and they are not all the same. In the end it doesn't really matter because just how not all films are created equally, neither is every pixel. After all the calculations are done it is how things compare visually, not mathematically.

[Turn]

wow!

I agree with nqjudo.

/thread

[timmciglobal]

I think when national geographic, time magazine, high end wedding photographers etc etc started using digital that was the "proof" that it's hit the useful resolution of film.

11x14's as good as any film ever gave = as good as film even if you can "blow it up more" with a slight advantage one way or other.

Film is outside of special application pointless on a resolution standpoint vs digital for 99.9997% of people.

Tim

[cdifoto]

Doesn't matter if Wal-Mart screws up your negatives. Or if your camera puts out megapixels that look like tennis balls. Or if your photos are tediously boring.

[Margus]

Some of you guys have somehow missed my first sentence in the original post ;)
I do agree with everyone who are stating that what you see is finally important and that the resolution of digital cameras has been good enough already for a while. What surprised me were the results of some math :)

[Razr]

This post is not another film vs analog, pros and cons discussion. I was just curious about the maximum resolution of photos taken on a 35mm film and after some elementary math it turned out to be 13.5Mpixels. I don't know about you guys, but I was surprised that the megapixel race has only now taken us to the situation where the digital cameras are comparable with the 35mm film in terms of resolution.

Totally wrong (and absurd) assumption(s) by those who want to prove dubious points: assumptions fallaciously based in large part on the imaging capabilities of one or two "full frame" DSLRs.
Not only that, the assumptions, as here, infer that "digital" (the entirety of the imaging genre) has somehow magically achieved parity with “full format” (the imaging genre) of 35mm film when certainly 98% of digital cameras suck when compared to the ordinary performance of a $49.95 K-Mart film camera.
+Please remember “digital” produces hundreds of millions of less than full frame cameras with “resolution” capabilities that barely exceed that of a Holga… or lens baby. It is thus ignobly disingenuous to make such blanket statements for “digital, the (entire) genre”.
Here's a caution: with digital interpolation (and remember film can be and is digitized) any imaging format can be used to expand the capabilities of the taking format.

1. Only Digital backs (the genre) exceed 35mm film by any reliable measure.
2. (some) digital backs exceed some medium format film (645) but no digital back comes close to 4 x 5 film: not even close.

My EOS 1 body film gear with “L” lenses ritually beat my OLY DSLR and most other DSLRs.

Until ALL (each) digital camera can compete on an even imaging footing with my EOS 1 body film gear, one ought to stop making invidious comparisons with 35mm film, wrongly asserting (and inferring) that all digital cameras have matched the imaging resolution of ordinary 35mm film cameras.
That coming from one who is very proud of digital since I own and now more often than not, use digital SLR gear in my work.

[Rhys]

I prefer to calculate based on the final print size. I calculated ages ago that 80mp was the optimum, given Agfapan 25 as the base negative. Not all negatives are equal - especially not Konica 3200 pushed 3 stops!

The perceived quality of digital is better. It's harder, given the Bayer matrix, to judge whether it's absolutely sharp though. With film, if the image was taken in focus and the grain structure is clear under a lupe then the print is in focus. The Bayer matrix makes it very hard at 1:1 to see whether the image is sharp. Contrast that with a Foveon image and it's clear which is easier to work with.

I think though that digital and film are two entirely different animals and that measurebating between them is a little pointless. They each have different purposes and different ways of achieving the final result.

[D Thompson]

Totally wrong (and absurd)

I don't know why I find this funny, but at the moment I'm ROTFLMAO :rolleyes::D:D:D

[BBPhoto]

I don't know why I find this funny, but at the moment I'm ROTFLMAO :rolleyes::D:D:D

You are not alone, Dennis... you are not alone.

[Margus]

Razr, you are taking the photography and this forum too seriously.

[cdifoto]

ApertureBoy does have a point though...

[Razr]

Razr, you are taking the photography and this forum too seriously.


You are correct: I take the craft of photography too seriously; I'm still working at my digital/film photography after nearly four decades in the craft.

It is those who never had (and likely never will have) the pleasure of "full frame" photography (any) until and unless they break down and buy a CANON 5D.

EOS 5D = $2,200+.

"Full frame" Nikon F5 or EOS 1n RS = $400.

Me? Preparing to make my by now annual "fall colors" runs into Colorado with my "full frame" film bodies and my "uber full frame" Pentax 67.

As for this forum and those who can't seem to ever break away from it (as I more often than not do)? :p:rolleyes: