Lockwood73
New member
Aside from the obvious factors (focus, lighting, etc.) at what pixel count does a digital photography parallel film in clarity? In layman's terms.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Digital vs. Film Clarity
- Thread starter Lockwood73
- Start date
sean000
Veteran Member
If I understand what you mean by "clarity" I don't think the pixel count matters much. I think of clarity as the same as local area contrast, and I think the lens matters there more than the sensor. Post-processing can also increase it to a degree. This is what Adobe Camera RAW's clarity slider adjusts. It can make images pop a bit more, and it can cut through haze pretty well. In my Nik Silver Efex black & white software they call the adjustment "structure," but it appears to have the same effect as ACR's clarity slider and using a really high radius / low amount unsharp mask setting.
I'm not sure film vs digital makes a big difference here or not. Of course the quality of the light (and whether it is hazy or not) along with the exposure will have an impact. Assuming the same light and the same exposure, a high quality multi-coated lens will produce a photograph with more micro-contrast / local contrast than a cheap lens. The tonal curve and dynamic range of the film/sensor will also have an impact, but I think the lens matters more since there can be a difference between the contrast given by a good lens and a cheap lens using the same sensor.
Even in terms of resolution it seems like the limiting factor is more frequently the lens and not the sensor.
Here are a couple of good article on the subject:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/lens-contrast.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
If you do a theory calculation for resolution (sharpness) you get some large number like 20 mega-pixels or more. However, when I first got my D70 (6 mega-pixels) I was astonished to find it was virtually as good as a good 35mm film image. There are some explanations for this but I won't digress. I think that about 8 or 10 Mpx you are equaling 35mm film. My current D300 with 12 Mpx takes better images than I ever got with film.
Regards, John
Regards, John
Just to get the fight off and running, my opinion is that the answer is 12.
But it depends, especially on what you mean by "clarity", and which film you are talking about:
A l'eau, c'est l'heure! (French naval motto)
But it depends, especially on what you mean by "clarity", and which film you are talking about:
- 12 MP digital files from a dSLR are superior to 100 ISO colour transparency film in noise (especially) and sharpness, but inferior in smoothness of tonal gradation and colour accuracy;
- 12 MP digital files from a dSLR are superior to colour negative film;
- no dSLR matches the resolution or smoothness of tonal range of 25 ISO B&W 35mm film optimally processed and printed.
A l'eau, c'est l'heure! (French naval motto)
Chris R-UK
Forum Pro
What do you mean by "film"?
As another poster said, it depends......
--
Chris R
- 35mm B&W
- 35mm transparency
- 35mm colour reversal
- Any of the above scanned on a (1) drum scanner, (2) film scanner, (3) flatbed scanner
- B&W or colour print (and what size?)
- Medium format, large format
As another poster said, it depends......
--
Chris R
Cedarhill
Senior Member
You are going to get a whole lot of different answers because the term "clarity" means different things to different people. I have hundreds of images made with a 10 year old 2 megapixel camera that are crystal clear on a 2 megapixel computer screen or printed as 6 X 4 inch prints. I know of a billboard on the side of the road near my house that has crystal clear picture of a real estate agent on it. The sign is probably 8 by 12 feet. I happen to know the picture was taken with a 6 megapixel Nikon D40. There is a thread going in another forum where they are discussing whether a 12 megapixel image from a D90 is adequate to print out a clear life sized picture of a person viewed from a few feet away. I would say that picture will probably not be very clear, although it might be adequate for their purposes.
The clarity of a film photograph in comparison to these examples depends on what you do with the film. As a practical matter, film scanned and printed, like what you would have to do on my second and third examples, does not look as good as an image that was digital to start with.
What is it you are really asking?
The clarity of a film photograph in comparison to these examples depends on what you do with the film. As a practical matter, film scanned and printed, like what you would have to do on my second and third examples, does not look as good as an image that was digital to start with.
What is it you are really asking?
Andr3w
Forum Enthusiast
--
See more at http://www.fallingrunphotography.com
Read more at http://www.blueridgefieldjournal.com
See more at http://www.fallingrunphotography.com
Read more at http://www.blueridgefieldjournal.com
arachnophilia
Senior Member
whoa, whoa, stop right there.
- tri-x 400?
- tmax 3200?
- agfapan 100?
- ilford 400?
- techpan (25)?
- developed in what?
- developed at what temperature?
- fixed and rinsed in what?
- fixed and rinsed at what temperature?
- how long did it take to dry
GeraldW
Veteran Member
It will depend on print size to some degree; but for letter size (borderless 8.5" x 11"); something around 8 MP is enough.
It will also depend on the film being compared. Color negative (print film) has a lot more dynamic range on the over exposure side than digital, so if the scene has a lot of high key areas, you can't get there with digital without shooting RAW and then some post processing - maybe!
It also depends on the camera. Partly on the lens; but to a greater extent on the processing being done in JPEG images. My old Pro 1 at 8 MP has very little in-camera noise reduction and an excellent lens. It produces wonderfully clear and sharp images that look very "film like" and natural, as does my 8 MP 30D.
Some years ago, when I was doing digital scans of negatives; I found that an 8 MP scan got me images that were as good as my analog prints from the same negative.
With some cameras and lenses, 6 MP can be enough; but 8 is a more conservative number.
--
Jerry
It will also depend on the film being compared. Color negative (print film) has a lot more dynamic range on the over exposure side than digital, so if the scene has a lot of high key areas, you can't get there with digital without shooting RAW and then some post processing - maybe!
It also depends on the camera. Partly on the lens; but to a greater extent on the processing being done in JPEG images. My old Pro 1 at 8 MP has very little in-camera noise reduction and an excellent lens. It produces wonderfully clear and sharp images that look very "film like" and natural, as does my 8 MP 30D.
Some years ago, when I was doing digital scans of negatives; I found that an 8 MP scan got me images that were as good as my analog prints from the same negative.
With some cameras and lenses, 6 MP can be enough; but 8 is a more conservative number.
--
Jerry
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
12-15mp to pretty much equal 35mm. 21-33mp for medium format, and 50-60mp for 4x5. In absolute resolution terms, it takes more, but on print, this is a decent ballpark.
For dynamic range and latitude, digital is better than some films and worse than others.
And finally, regardless of pixels, etc....film looks different.
MusicDoctorDJ
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,400
- Reaction score
- 11
Well . . . we all know that the $8000 full frame 24MP Nikon D3x is capable of making decent 5x7 inch prints . . . maybe an 8x10 tops!
So yes, 35mm film is, and always will be . . . better!
Heck . . . even the pocket 110 film camera image quality blew away anything that has come out digital so far!
NOT!
Actually, I think in cropped-sensored DSLR's, 6MP was the point where digital put the knife in the back of 35mm film . . .
--
J. D.
Colorado
So yes, 35mm film is, and always will be . . . better!
Heck . . . even the pocket 110 film camera image quality blew away anything that has come out digital so far!
NOT!
Actually, I think in cropped-sensored DSLR's, 6MP was the point where digital put the knife in the back of 35mm film . . .
--
J. D.
Colorado
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
Probably true. I know when I purchased the Canon 10D, my use of 35mm for weddings plummited. Now it's back, but for other reasons.Well . . . we all know that the $8000 full frame 24MP Nikon D3x is capable of making decent 5x7 inch prints . . . maybe an 8x10 tops!
So yes, 35mm film is, and always will be . . . better!
Heck . . . even the pocket 110 film camera image quality blew away anything that has come out digital so far!
NOT!
Actually, I think in cropped-sensored DSLR's, 6MP was the point where digital put the knife in the back of 35mm film . . .
For most people....the ones viewing on screen.....and the people who have never printed larger than 8x10.....a 6mp DSLR is all that's needed.
--
J. D.
Colorado
MusicDoctorDJ
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,400
- Reaction score
- 11
I think we all know that most 6MP DSLR's are more than capable of prints much larger than 8x10's.
I've done 20x30 prints from my 6MP DSLR and they are awesome . . . much sharper and less grain (noise) than any 35mm 20x30 print I've ever made.
--
J. D.
Colorado
Something tells me you "improved" when you switched to digital then. Film is quite (extremely) capable of 20x30 prints that are as good and better than one from a 6MP dSLR. It's all in your technique.
MusicDoctorDJ
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,400
- Reaction score
- 11
Just can't resist throwing out the digs, can you?
By the way . . . I was talking 35mm film . . . not 4x5 sheet film!
--
J. D.
Colorado
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
I think the point was simply that one can obtain a decent 20x30 from a 6mp DSLR. Will it be detailed and sharp....depends upon to what it is compared.
When I first when down to Arizona, I brought my Canon 10D and my Bessa R2a rangefinder. The rangefinder was loaded with Ilford Delta 100 and Fuji Astia 100. There is no doubt that the 20x30 prints I made from the 10D looked OK. Were they as detailed as the scans from a Nikon 5000 at that size.....not by a long shot. Was the film grainier.....you bet.
In the end, they looked different. I chose the film for the large prints simply because I prefered the look.
So was I. I have a 40"x30" enlargement from Fuji Superia 100 in my booth this summer at shows. Looks great.
I would not go as far as to push a 6MP dSLR image to a 20"x30" print unless I knew it was going to be above someone's fireplace or couch.
I sold a 20" by 30" print taken on a 10D to a school teacher, who displayed it in her classroom. As far as I know, that's neither a fireplace or a couch. What did I do wrong? What's special about a fireplace or couch?
--
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum