35mm camera = ?? megapixel

[epc]

If you want to simulate a 35mm camera, how many megapixels would you need?

I have heard anywhere from 6-18 MP. Any thoughts? :confused:

THANKS!

[Ant]

Well, I've heard anywhere between 6-32 Megapixels.

I suppose the real truth is that, as film and digital are two completely different media, then any comparison that seeks to equate the two is going to be somewhat flawed.

You're better off deciding what you actually want to do with a digital camera and start from there. If you want to emulate 35mm film then buy a 35mm film camera ;)

[Geoff Chandler]

It is hard to say with accuracy as you would need to define the parameters of the comparison.
Maybe if you printed of pictures on identical paper at identical resolutions you'd get some kind of comparison - otherwise it is almost imposible to say with any real meaning.
Having said all that - the above comments are about as helpfull in that respect as you'll get.
Geoff

[dwig]

There are too many differences in image quality to get overly precise but simple math yields the following.

A fantastic lens/film combination will deliver somewhat less than 100 line pairs/mm. Take this as 200 "pixels", one for each of the two lines at 100 lppm, and assume you will use every sq mm of the 24x36mm neg/slide and the math says 34.5 mp. If you assume 50 lppm, a very good lens at one of its better apetures, you get about 8.5mp.

From this, its safe to assume that once you get beyond 5mp lens quality relative to chip size becomes increasingly important when comparing the two. When using the exact same lens, as with a comparison using a Nikon F6 and a D2x, the CCD's smaller format (slightly less than half-frame) means that the lens is less sharp, less total detail, on the digital camera and the digital has no real chance of matching film.

Its only when special lenses are used on the digital camera that swap covering power, that they only cover the smaller CCD and not a full 35mm frame, for higher actual resolution that the digital has a chance of fully matching the quality possible from a 35mm film camera. With the state of the current CCDs, its as much, or more, a matter of the "film" format than digital vs. analog. Just as 4x5 beats 2 1/4 beats 35mm full frame, 35mm FF will beat digital 'half frame'. The all-in-ones actually have an advantage here, as the lenses are designed specifically for their CCD size (about 1/4 of 35mm full frame, something similar to the old 110 neg size). Given the small format of these cameras, lenses delivering >200 lppi should be quite possible though the current mad rush to massive zoom ranges probably compromises this in many cases.

[Rhys]

If you want to simulate a 35mm camera, how many megapixels would you need?

I have heard anywhere from 6-18 MP. Any thoughts? :confused:

THANKS!

Take your best print at the largest size you have (or would like to have) - the largest flawless print (no visible grain). Put a ruler over it and measure the width and height of the print.

Assuming you will print at 150 dpi (which is perfectly adequate)
If you have inches then multiply the number of inches in the height by 150. Do the same with width and multiply the two together. Then divide my one million and yuo'll have your required megapixels.

if you use metric measurements then do the following:
Divide the centimetres width of the picure by 2.54 then multiply the result by 150. Divide the centimetres height of the picture by 2.54 then multiply the result by 150. Then multiply both answers together and divide my one million.

Thus: If all I want is a perfect 6 x 4 print then I multiply 6 x 150 = 900; 4 x 150 = 600. Multiply the two together gives me 540,000. Divided by 1,000,000 gives me 0.54 megapixels.

Raising the scale a bit to an A3 photo, A3's measurements are: 11.75 x 16.5 inches.
So... multiply that out by 150. We have 1762.5 x 2475. Discarding the extra 0.5 height, the sum is caulculated at 4,360,950 or just over 4 megapixels.

Now it's apparent just how lunatic the rush for ever more megapixels is!

Let's take matters the other way. I believe Kodak has a 14mp camera out there.

So... we take 14,000,000 pixels and divide that by 6 (the product of teh standard 2:3 film frame ratio) giving 2333333.33. We take the square root of that, giving us 1527. That is now multiplied by 2 for the height and 3 for the width - 3054 x 4581. Now let us divide both by 150, giving us 20 inches height by 30 inches height.

but the big question is - how big do you really want to print anyway?

[gary_hendricks]

If you want to simulate a 35mm camera, how many megapixels would you need?

I have heard anywhere from 6-18 MP. Any thoughts? :confused:

THANKS!


We need more info here. A 35mm camera doesn't map exactly to a digital camera. I think it depends on the size of the prints you want. In general:

1 megapixel or less: Cameras in this range (e.g. web cameras or cell phone cameras) have very low image resolution. Don't expect to be able to print high-quality photos using these cameras. You can, however, email the photos or post them on your web site. The good thing about such cameras, of course, is their low price.

1 to 2 megapixels: My first digital camera was a Canon PowerShot S110 which only had a 2 megapixel sensor. Cameras in this range are pretty decent though - you can expect to print out great 4x6 prints at this resolution. Of course, if you want larger, blown-up protraits of your birthday party or holiday in Italy, then I would certainly recommend getting more megapixels. Cameras in this range should sell for around $100 currently.

3 to 4 megapixels: Most new point-and-shoot cameras these days tend to have at least 3 to 4 megapixel image resolution. Bring these images to the lab and they'll be able to develop great looking 4x6, 5x7 and even 6x9 printouts. Expect to pay slightly more though - we're looking at around $250 for a good model.

5 megapixels and up: The more advanced cameras tend to have image resolutions of 5 to 8 megapixels. Newer point-and-shoot cameras have 5 megapixels, while the newer digital SLRs come with 8 megapixels. The quality of images shot by these cameras is simply stunning. Of course, their price tags are equally stunning . In this megapixel category, expect to pay around $300 for a 5 megapixel camera and up to $700 for an 8 megapixel SLR.

[Geoff Chandler]

For me it's not really a matter of how big I want to print - a friend printed one of my 3.2mp pics taken (accidentally) at 400 asa onto A3 paper full size - and it doesn't look bad!!
For me it's more about looking at a small portion under the magnifying glass as it were.
Geoff

[erichlund]

One thing should be set straight. Digital does map to film. It's just that we don't have the information to make an informed statement. The biggest differences between film and digital is that digital is exactly regular in its pattern, while film is completely random in the placement of its "dots", which we call grain. Also, the film emulsion is still capable of greater dynamic range.

Unfortunately, I cannot call Kodak or Fuji, etc. and have them tell me, on average, how many "dots" are in a 35mm frame, because it's a trade secret. So, the only way to get an approximation would be to do a test. Take the same photo with both digital and film. Have the digital printed in a series of sizes until you get the largest acceptable print. Then do the same with the film until you reach the same level of acceptance. The level of acceptance should be objectively measured, if possible. Compare the ratio of the areas of the two prints and you have the ratio of the digital to film. Of course, this only compares one particular film to one digital camera, but you could do a series of equivalent megapixel cameras to get an average result and you could standardize on either one film or one slide format, for instance, 100 ASA film of one particular brand.

Since no one here is likely to have (or access to) the sort of equipment to make OBJECTIVE evaluations of print quality, the point is somewhat moot. However, experience shows that a tight grained film can be blown up to poster size without significant quality loss, while the same cannot be said for digital without some form of post processing "magic". Hence, we are not there yet.

Cheers,
Eric

P.S. It may be noted that I did not say anything about scanning the film. Scanning would violate the integrity of the film, since we no longer know what was truly on the film. You would be testing the quality of your scanner versus the quality of the digital image.

[dwig]

...
Unfortunately, I cannot call Kodak or Fuji, etc. and have them tell me, on average, how many "dots" are in a 35mm frame, because it's a trade secret.
...

Actually, its not even that. Chemical film resolves different amounts of detail depending on the contrast of the image; there is no fixed "this film resolves that amount of detail". When the subject is all greys, some light some dark, film will resolve much less detail than when the image is blacks and whites, like newspaper print. The same is true for lenses.

[D70FAN]

We need more info here. A 35mm camera doesn't map exactly to a digital camera. I think it depends on the size of the prints you want. In general:

1 megapixel or less: Cameras in this range (e.g. web cameras or cell phone cameras) have very low image resolution. Don't expect to be able to print high-quality photos using these cameras. You can, however, email the photos or post them on your web site. The good thing about such cameras, of course, is their low price.

1 to 2 megapixels: My first digital camera was a Canon PowerShot S110 which only had a 2 megapixel sensor. Cameras in this range are pretty decent though - you can expect to print out great 4x6 prints at this resolution. Of course, if you want larger, blown-up protraits of your birthday party or holiday in Italy, then I would certainly recommend getting more megapixels. Cameras in this range should sell for around $100 currently.

3 to 4 megapixels: Most new point-and-shoot cameras these days tend to have at least 3 to 4 megapixel image resolution. Bring these images to the lab and they'll be able to develop great looking 4x6, 5x7 and even 6x9 printouts. Expect to pay slightly more though - we're looking at around $250 for a good model.

5 megapixels and up: The more advanced cameras tend to have image resolutions of 5 to 8 megapixels. Newer point-and-shoot cameras have 5 megapixels, while the newer digital SLRs come with 8 megapixels. The quality of images shot by these cameras is simply stunning. Of course, their price tags are equally stunning . In this megapixel category, expect to pay around $300 for a 5 megapixel camera and up to $700 for an 8 megapixel SLR.

I would like to know where you found an 8MP dSLR for $700!

The lowest priced 8MP is the Canon 20D and runs about $1500. The Canon DReb (about $800) is a 6MP dSLR.

In the future you might want to study up on consumer vs. dSLR cameras and sensors.

[jamison55]

The lowest priced 8MP is the Canon 20D and runs about $1500. The Canon DReb (about $800) is a 6MP dSLR.

The 20D is the best 8mp DSLR for under $2000, but I think you can buy a new Olympus EVolt for < $1000...

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=5214664/search=evolt

I agree that Gary's $700 is uninformed, though ;)

EDIT:
OK maybe Gary's closer to the mark than we originally thought...there's a $100 rebate on the EVolt kit, and some of the retailers are selling for $850 to start - that's with the kit lens! Seems like the best deal in DSLR's right now...

[Rhys]

The 20D is the best 8mp DSLR for under $2000, but I think you can buy a new Olympus EVolt for < $1000...
--- snip ---
OK maybe Gary's closer to the mark than we originally thought...there's a $100 rebate on the EVolt kit, and some of the retailers are selling for $850 to start - that's with the kit lens! Seems like the best deal in DSLR's right now...

Hmm. At $850, the evolt is looking revoltingly tempting.

[gary_hendricks]

I would like to know where you found an 8MP dSLR for $700!

The lowest priced 8MP is the Canon 20D and runs about $1500. The Canon DReb (about $800) is a 6MP dSLR.

In the future you might want to study up on consumer vs. dSLR cameras and sensors.


Yes - that was a typo. :o

The more accruate price is about $1500 for the 20D. But the new olympus Evolt 300 is great 8 mp cam. A friend of mine just bought it, its really nice. More lenses for its format are coming, by olympus and sigma. It comes with a 14-45 (28-90 35 mm) for 999.00.

[jamison55]

Hmm. At $850, the evolt is looking revoltingly tempting.

$850 is BEFORE the $100 rebate at a few of those shops.

That makes it...

Let's see...

$750!!!

Or roughly half of what I paid for my 20D body alone!

[D70FAN]

The 20D is the best 8mp DSLR for under $2000, but I think you can buy a new Olympus EVolt for < $1000...

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=5214664/search=evolt

I agree that Gary's $700 is uninformed, though ;)

EDIT:
OK maybe Gary's closer to the mark than we originally thought...there's a $100 rebate on the EVolt kit, and some of the retailers are selling for $850 to start - that's with the kit lens! Seems like the best deal in DSLR's right now...

While the E300 is essentially a dSLR I hesitate to put it in the same class as the 20D (or even the D70). It's more like an all-in-one with a removable lens. The somewhat smallish 8MP 4:3 sensor put it more in the "tweener" catagory. ;)

But I digress...

[erichlund]

Actually, its not even that. Chemical film resolves different amounts of detail depending on the contrast of the image; there is no fixed "this film resolves that amount of detail". When the subject is all greys, some light some dark, film will resolve much less detail than when the image is blacks and whites, like newspaper print. The same is true for lenses.

I'm sure you're correct. It doesn't invalidate the basic concept that digital and film can be measured objectively, it simply makes the process more complex. What you've introduced is the fact that several types of photos must be compared to make a complete evaluation.

Since I don't have the tools to make such an evaluation, I can only go with subjective evaluation.

[gary_hendricks]

I'm sure you're correct. It doesn't invalidate the basic concept that digital and film can be measured objectively, it simply makes the process more complex. What you've introduced is the fact that several types of photos must be compared to make a complete evaluation.

Since I don't have the tools to make such an evaluation, I can only go with subjective evaluation.

Absolutely. The best way to compare film and digital is through a wide series of photos.