-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Print sizes: 35mm film and M43
- Thread starter generikku
- Start date
Can you explain to me the similarities in size to tubes and the Micro Four Thirds sensor size other than that then? No I'm not claiming anything got smaller I don't know where you read anything about that. As to printing, actually with today's wide format printers the 4:3 sensor makes it much more difficult to get reasonable prints without cropping your image.
Do you know what was 110 format? Or 135 or 120? Why a 135 is smaller than 120, but 110 is smaller than 135m
There has been all kind formats before even 135 came and it got odd 3:2 not because it was better, but because it was limited by the original source. It was a compromise and just got accepted as is because SLR cameras size and weight mattered and cheap price allowed it to raise among hobbyist and journalists. 135 was for photography what 8mm was for video.
And if you claim that paper sizes were designed after the 135 film, you are delusional.
4:3 has been and is even today far more used ratio than 2:3/16:9/16:10.
Printers can print on any paper in any ratio and in that photography it has been since day 2 that prints gets cropped. If not in the enlarger, then when passepartout is placed or frame is set.
Cropping is always done to support the photo and living in illusion that photos are not cropped is just stupid as 95 times of 100 photo will look better when cropped. And it isn't because lazyness but because it just is so.
Olympus chose to use 110 format, because digital technology was advanced enough. 16:9 was already back then a common knowledge that televisions and computer screens comes to be in that. But movie industry doesn't use 16:9 but a wider one.
16:9 doesn't work on computers like 5:4 or 4:3 does.
Why Apple chose 4:3 for iPad. Why prints today work more with 4:3 than with 3:2 or 16:9.
But many doesn't just work compromises with ratios, they choose crop that supports the content and then it is framed. Starting ratio of 4:3 or 5:4 are best ones.
There has been all kind formats before even 135 came and it got odd 3:2 not because it was better, but because it was limited by the original source. It was a compromise and just got accepted as is because SLR cameras size and weight mattered and cheap price allowed it to raise among hobbyist and journalists. 135 was for photography what 8mm was for video.
And if you claim that paper sizes were designed after the 135 film, you are delusional.
4:3 has been and is even today far more used ratio than 2:3/16:9/16:10.
Printers can print on any paper in any ratio and in that photography it has been since day 2 that prints gets cropped. If not in the enlarger, then when passepartout is placed or frame is set.
Cropping is always done to support the photo and living in illusion that photos are not cropped is just stupid as 95 times of 100 photo will look better when cropped. And it isn't because lazyness but because it just is so.
Olympus chose to use 110 format, because digital technology was advanced enough. 16:9 was already back then a common knowledge that televisions and computer screens comes to be in that. But movie industry doesn't use 16:9 but a wider one.
16:9 doesn't work on computers like 5:4 or 4:3 does.
Why Apple chose 4:3 for iPad. Why prints today work more with 4:3 than with 3:2 or 16:9.
But many doesn't just work compromises with ratios, they choose crop that supports the content and then it is framed. Starting ratio of 4:3 or 5:4 are best ones.
If you ever get a change to use films, take a shots from same scenery with differenr film and then with digital in raw. The film will cost you as you need to run around like with 4-5 different SLR bodies and one digital.
Then process the film's (or order them) and get them sigitalized and printed without corrections.
Now you have a good starting point to see how a different films behaved in different situations and you can make a film profile for digital raw that will give you the idea. You will be unpleased with film as more than less, you have overexposed or underexposed or colors look just odd. Why BW never died. And you come to see that today film emulations does better job than film ever. Why I lust after PEN-F as its art dial should work just like film.
Then process the film's (or order them) and get them sigitalized and printed without corrections.
Now you have a good starting point to see how a different films behaved in different situations and you can make a film profile for digital raw that will give you the idea. You will be unpleased with film as more than less, you have overexposed or underexposed or colors look just odd. Why BW never died. And you come to see that today film emulations does better job than film ever. Why I lust after PEN-F as its art dial should work just like film.
Yes I understand what 110 sized film is I didn't come down in a snow storm yesterday. What I am saying regarding the crop is with today's print standards you will as a whole crop more from an image taken to most printers than you would an image taken at 16:10. It's also easier to find frames in those sizes as opposed to 4:3 off the shelf. You might have some deal worked out with your local printing/framing shop I don't know abou.
Not a direct comparison to 35mm film but I might suggest looking at reviews at imaging resources. They usually do an evaluation of expected print quality at different iso settings. My view is that m43 digital files generally produce better prints than were typically available with 35mm film. Now, low iso film with very skilled processing and printing I don't know. But certainly better than what one would typically get through most labs.
Many advertising are low as 7DPI. And bigger you go, smaller it gets.
And if you want that printed on canvas, you literally go to about 20-50 DPI. So lots of wasted pixels.
Instead print it on glass and it would look amazing even with 16Mpix.
And if you want that printed on canvas, you literally go to about 20-50 DPI. So lots of wasted pixels.
Instead print it on glass and it would look amazing even with 16Mpix.
If you crop based the frames or printing paper, you are doing it wrong or very cheaply.
I take photos based final print size. So my camera settings for depth of field and shutter speed are based to final print size.
My framing is to get the content and leave cropping capabilities for what I see.
My printing is done for the common print papers as it gets cut to edges.
The framing company next to photoshop will frame the photo by the style where we choose the passepartout size, type, material and then frames sizes and types.
Sometimes it takes 2-3 weeks that framing material is delivered from Germany or Japan or Russia based the material I chose.
It costs in total to make a 55" frame $120. Printed on glass or aluminum makes it about $180-200 based that month prices. If I want backlight glass, it takes $45 extra but limits to about 40" print then.
It is cheap and very high quality and 16mpix makes no much difference to 64mpix.
But as I have lots of common 4:3 frames and ready with passepartout I can order bunch of prints for that framing in common 20-30" size.
4:3 is very common ratio, more common than 3:2 or 16:9.
But being limited to printer paper ratio or camera sensor ratio is just stupid. Don't be afraid to crop. You don't win anything by limiting yourself to not crop.
I take photos based final print size. So my camera settings for depth of field and shutter speed are based to final print size.
My framing is to get the content and leave cropping capabilities for what I see.
My printing is done for the common print papers as it gets cut to edges.
The framing company next to photoshop will frame the photo by the style where we choose the passepartout size, type, material and then frames sizes and types.
Sometimes it takes 2-3 weeks that framing material is delivered from Germany or Japan or Russia based the material I chose.
It costs in total to make a 55" frame $120. Printed on glass or aluminum makes it about $180-200 based that month prices. If I want backlight glass, it takes $45 extra but limits to about 40" print then.
It is cheap and very high quality and 16mpix makes no much difference to 64mpix.
But as I have lots of common 4:3 frames and ready with passepartout I can order bunch of prints for that framing in common 20-30" size.
4:3 is very common ratio, more common than 3:2 or 16:9.
But being limited to printer paper ratio or camera sensor ratio is just stupid. Don't be afraid to crop. You don't win anything by limiting yourself to not crop.
Something around ASA 25 OR ASA 10 would compete with 16mpix in 8x10 prints. That is how good these 16mpix really are. Make print to 24" and it is still a draw. But then comes the difference that there is couple extra stops in chroma but luma gets off.
But 220 or larger and film wins.
But 220 or larger and film wins.
If you're going to print to custom paper and frame sizes then yeah, it's totally different. It's not a matter of doing things wrong, or cheaply, sometimes you just want a print done and on your wall without the hassle of going through speaking to printing and framing companies and having everything done to order.
You do that at home too.
You take the photo.
You crop the photo support the content.
You print the photo.
You trim the print.
You cut Passepartout for the frame and print.
You hang frame on wall.
It takes20 minutes to do it after printing.
Why does people act like slaves that follow paper manufacturer paper sizes? "Oh this printing paper is A3, I must print to A3!" and then what you do when your printer has a 30m roll of paper? You print 30m wide? Huh?
You take the photo.
You crop the photo support the content.
You print the photo.
You trim the print.
You cut Passepartout for the frame and print.
You hang frame on wall.
It takes20 minutes to do it after printing.
Why does people act like slaves that follow paper manufacturer paper sizes? "Oh this printing paper is A3, I must print to A3!" and then what you do when your printer has a 30m roll of paper? You print 30m wide? Huh?
You crop the photo for the content and then you hang it on the wall. You work around frame ratio with a passepartout so you are not required to find 3:2 frames if your print is 3:2 as you can use 4:3 frames too. It is easier work with camera that has 4:3 ratio than that has 3:2 or 16:9.
Franka T.L.
Veteran Member
as a printer myself I fely compelled to add to this my 2 cents.
First the good enough part. here's where printing from film differs very much from digital. Printing from digital is in itself another form of image development. Many do it straight from RAW, processed specifically for the printing purpose and specific print size, with film its all magnification under the enlarger, a 2nd hand image from the one developed. This limitation and nature place a hurdle for wet darkroom printer. But good enough is only good enough when you had not seen the next best. In essence its not a technical but more a philosophical one, its not whether its good enough ( they are and had always been good enough, after all they deliver the capture in a physical disply, right ).
ITS WHETHER YOU FIND IT … GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU or not ?
And the notion that M4/3 can print to that same 8X10 or 16X20, but then this also apply to almost all the other even smaller format sll the way down to the minuscule 1/3 or 1/2.6 used in smartphone, now more so when both major OS on those platform support RAW.
Again its that same one, is it good enough for you. I've done 8X10 Contact Print from 8X10 Neg and if I take that as the yardstick none of them would be good enough but then I recognize there will be differences between the media and between media sizes. So I print to the best I could muster on that capture I had on hand, as best I could, and most of the time, with most medium, and of most sized of them including those that are even smaller than 4/3,its good enough.
The critical Q for a printer is to note when its not good enough and what or how to go about it.
--
- Franka -
First the good enough part. here's where printing from film differs very much from digital. Printing from digital is in itself another form of image development. Many do it straight from RAW, processed specifically for the printing purpose and specific print size, with film its all magnification under the enlarger, a 2nd hand image from the one developed. This limitation and nature place a hurdle for wet darkroom printer. But good enough is only good enough when you had not seen the next best. In essence its not a technical but more a philosophical one, its not whether its good enough ( they are and had always been good enough, after all they deliver the capture in a physical disply, right ).
ITS WHETHER YOU FIND IT … GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU or not ?
And the notion that M4/3 can print to that same 8X10 or 16X20, but then this also apply to almost all the other even smaller format sll the way down to the minuscule 1/3 or 1/2.6 used in smartphone, now more so when both major OS on those platform support RAW.
Again its that same one, is it good enough for you. I've done 8X10 Contact Print from 8X10 Neg and if I take that as the yardstick none of them would be good enough but then I recognize there will be differences between the media and between media sizes. So I print to the best I could muster on that capture I had on hand, as best I could, and most of the time, with most medium, and of most sized of them including those that are even smaller than 4/3,its good enough.
The critical Q for a printer is to note when its not good enough and what or how to go about it.
--
- Franka -
Last edited:
FingerPainter
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 12,593
- Solutions
- 37
- Reaction score
- 13,643
That's just a ludicrous claim. Current Micro Four Thirds cameras aren't even as good as 5.5 year old APS-C cameras, let alone 3 year old FF cameras. Current Micro Four thirds are not as good as even Nikon's very first FF camera in terms of noise, dynamic range, or colour depth.
Phileas Fogg
Veteran Member
35mm film has many variables in print sizes just as digital does. That said, I have printed UP to 24"x36" prints with then 100ASA (100ISO) print films. The prints looked good but varied based on what was the subject and how it was filling the frame. But typically above 16"x20" with even100ASA negative film you will notice the film grain if you stand closer than say 3ft. from it. As others state it's all about viewing distance and perspective as such.
There are no rules per se about print sizes be it from analogue film or digital. Just some general guidelines.
I made up to 20"x30" prints with my 6.3MP APS-C and 8.2MP APS-H Canon sensors. THEY LOOKED GREAT! Generally better than 35mm film does at that size. Digital even from these two lower MP cameras was smooth and noise free shooting up to 400ISO and even 1000ISO with my Canon iDMKII 8.2 MP camera. Higher ISO just revealed noise in the sensor. If one sticks his/her nose up to 1 foot away from the prints made from either sensor, they will see a beginning of digital pixelation and softness but the degree of such matters based on the subject and how it fills the frame. A portrait of 1-2 persons shot as a closer up shot easily looks smooth and great even at say 20"x30" or maybe 24"x36" with either the 6.3 or 8.2 MP sensors. But say a group portrait of a family where all are shot filing the frame as a full length group shot, the pixels will not have as much detail at 20"x30" and again if one sticks their nose to say within 1 ft then they will notice pixelation of said full length group shot at 20"x30". Stand back 3-4-5ft. and there is NO PROBLEMS as the image will fall into shape to your eyes. With analogue 35mm film you noticed grain at close distance take over from detail of the same sort of group portrait made to 20"x30" sizes.
IMO, any M/43rds camera of a current generation (16MP) will make better 20"x30" prints than either my older lower rez digital did and better than even 100ISO 35mm film. Even if you pixel peeped from 1 ft away. Even at higher ISO say even 3200, other than noticing noise the 16MP M4/3rds cameras will still make cleaner and better 20"x30" prints than 35mm film , especially HIGH ISO film.
IMO, 16MP M4/3rds printing can be made to near any size that 99% of the viewers/market will want. 20"x, 24"x 30"x will if shot well, processed well, printed well be 100% acceptable prints. Of course a 36MP, 42MP or 50MP digital cameras will be cleaner and sharper when looking at prints side by side but that does not mean our 16MP M4/3rds cameras are crap. 16"x or smaller will likely SHOW NO DIFFERENCE in image quality from printing from any of these MP choices. ANY, repeat ANY screen size from a larger desk top screens down to smart phone screens will not show any difference between in quality from a 16MP camera and 24-36-42-50+MP cameras. Any digital camera made since oh 2003-2004 will have MORE pixels to fill most any screen used today.
There are no rules per se about print sizes be it from analogue film or digital. Just some general guidelines.
I made up to 20"x30" prints with my 6.3MP APS-C and 8.2MP APS-H Canon sensors. THEY LOOKED GREAT! Generally better than 35mm film does at that size. Digital even from these two lower MP cameras was smooth and noise free shooting up to 400ISO and even 1000ISO with my Canon iDMKII 8.2 MP camera. Higher ISO just revealed noise in the sensor. If one sticks his/her nose up to 1 foot away from the prints made from either sensor, they will see a beginning of digital pixelation and softness but the degree of such matters based on the subject and how it fills the frame. A portrait of 1-2 persons shot as a closer up shot easily looks smooth and great even at say 20"x30" or maybe 24"x36" with either the 6.3 or 8.2 MP sensors. But say a group portrait of a family where all are shot filing the frame as a full length group shot, the pixels will not have as much detail at 20"x30" and again if one sticks their nose to say within 1 ft then they will notice pixelation of said full length group shot at 20"x30". Stand back 3-4-5ft. and there is NO PROBLEMS as the image will fall into shape to your eyes. With analogue 35mm film you noticed grain at close distance take over from detail of the same sort of group portrait made to 20"x30" sizes.
IMO, any M/43rds camera of a current generation (16MP) will make better 20"x30" prints than either my older lower rez digital did and better than even 100ISO 35mm film. Even if you pixel peeped from 1 ft away. Even at higher ISO say even 3200, other than noticing noise the 16MP M4/3rds cameras will still make cleaner and better 20"x30" prints than 35mm film , especially HIGH ISO film.
IMO, 16MP M4/3rds printing can be made to near any size that 99% of the viewers/market will want. 20"x, 24"x 30"x will if shot well, processed well, printed well be 100% acceptable prints. Of course a 36MP, 42MP or 50MP digital cameras will be cleaner and sharper when looking at prints side by side but that does not mean our 16MP M4/3rds cameras are crap. 16"x or smaller will likely SHOW NO DIFFERENCE in image quality from printing from any of these MP choices. ANY, repeat ANY screen size from a larger desk top screens down to smart phone screens will not show any difference between in quality from a 16MP camera and 24-36-42-50+MP cameras. Any digital camera made since oh 2003-2004 will have MORE pixels to fill most any screen used today.
No. What I could do thirty years ago is irrelevant.
What matters is whether or not a piece of equipment will achieve what I need to do today.
Each and every photographer should choose the equipment that best meets his or her needs.
i agree. i don't mind at all if every new camera generation comes up with better sensors, but for my needs the current crop of m43 cameras is good enough IQ wise (apart from hot pixels, but that is a very specific need).
same with megapixels. i'm perfectly fine with the 16 (or ~14, if you shoot in 2:3 format) of my GH4. this is in my opinion enough for any print size, as long as a reasonable viewing distance is taken into account. of course it's nice to look from a short distance at a very large print and still see fine details, thanks to the immense resolution that many of todays FF sensors offer. nice to have, but not necessary for me and eating hard disk space and computing power rapidly (i should probably add that i like to do startrail images with the help of image stacking. one final picture is a compound of usually 100-400 single RAW pictures).
once the IQ is on an acceptable level, what makes or brakes a camera for me is the shooting experience. a good camera is a camera that doesn't get in the way. this can mean it (and the lenses i lug around) isn't so heavy that i rather leave it at home. m43 is great in this regard. but it also means that a camera is big enough to hold and operate it comfortably. currently, the EM1 and GH3/GH4 are probably the only m43 cameras to meet this criterion for me.
sorry for digressing...
TheEye
Veteran Member
When digital first came out I did not jump on the bandwagon, because I felt the quality I was used to and which I wanted too at least match just wasn't there yet. That's why I went fully digital only in 2009, 18 years after first laying eyes on digital cameras, which at the time were the size of a suitcase nuke.
Well, yes, but if what's good enough now is also worse than in the past, this does not give me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
Obviously.
Guy Parsons
Veteran Member
Briefly involved in camera clubs in the era of changeover from film to digital and printing up to A4 size for club competitions.
Those early digital days taught me what was needed, working with a 3MP camera (Oly C-730) it was always being pushed to the limits.
And the limits that I found were that the very lowest number of original camera pixels per inch of print was 180 with a good file, better to keep to 200 minimum. At 150 it was definitely soft. Around 240 and all was very good, above 300 basically a waste of time unless always examining close up with a magnifying glass. All that using Qimage to print as it does its own automatic interpolation to suit the printer type, also does auto sharpening to suit print size. It works.
In amongst that early printing and later when I was using a 5MP camera I did extensive testing to compare 100 ISO colour negative film results to various MP counts, bigger MP being simulated by gradually zooming in on the same subject material and later calculating pixels per detail etc. That effort taught me that 10 to 12MP equalled the colour neg film for printing, just as Olympus once said, "12MP is enough".
When I was using an 8MP camera I felt that the results printed up better than film not because of resolution comparisons but because of the lack of grain noise the digital files were nicer (the detail was "cleaner") than any scanned film files.
Now that we have 16MP we are totally spoiled, way better than any colour film could do, that 4608 wide image translates at my 200 minimum to 4608/200=23.04 inches ability and still look good close up. Or if standing back a bit then the 180 number would deliver 4608/180=25.6 inches wide and still be OK if a good file to start with.
Of course if viewing distance is restricted to the usual definition of 10 inches or the diagonal measurement whichever in larger, then if you can print a nice 8x10 inch then that same file can be printed to any size. At 200 pixels per inch file then 8x10 translates to 1600x2000 pixels, that means that 3.2MP is enough. Hey, that neatly fits what I was achieving with my 3.14MP camera back in 2002/2003, print a little smaller onto A4 paper. No camera club judge ever remarked that my prints were not sharp.
So never fear, the 16MP cameras are way ahead of 35mm film, and way more than enough to print to any size if viewed correctly.
Regards....... Guy
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum