Resolution of 135 and 645? Locked

Started Mar 13, 2020 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
penguinman2020 Junior Member • Posts: 33
Re: It doesn't make sense, out of curiosity...

marcio_napoli wrote:

So even with extra magnification and being a super large 4 x 5 negative (and fine grain film), it still barely wins over R5's 45 mp ?

With what we usually hear in forums, it should obliterate to atoms the R5.

Yet that's not happening in the slightest here.

I mean, 45 mp is a ton of resolution, it really is.

I've used 40 mp on Phase One digital backs and it's capable of pretty stunning results.

Not questioning if 40-45 mp / 4 x 5 film is impressive or not, it absolutely is, zero question about that.

Hope that's clear right out of the gate.

What I'm questioning is how digital 45 mp more or less equals 4 x 5 film and people still claim 135 and MF have from 24-40 to 100-150 mp respectively for color films (not interested in special films)

Well, it doesn't.

He’s actually comparing two digital cameras: A Canon Eos R5 vs. An Epson V850 pro. And a word of warning: Epson flatbeds have abysmal taking lenses.

Here’s a quick summary of the performance of an Epson:

Epson v850:

Compared to Canon FS4000US:

Remember: film scanners are actually data extractors. A scanner with a soft taking lens means the scanner will fail to extract all the information contained on a negative, giving the impression of worse and softer results. You are wasting valuable "resolution" when scanning on an epson. Its like buying a Porshe but only getting Ford Fiesta level of performance

A lot of film vs digital comparison are actually that: comparisons between two digital cameras. Even the fuji frontiers are built on 90s "digital camera" tech.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
MOD RLBur
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow