-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What is the minimum film size that gives equal or better IQ than the best digital sensor?
- Thread starter Supisiche
- Start date
8x10 inches should be enough
Overrank
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,917
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 4,435
It depends on the film and what you’re photographing.
If you look at the datasheet for Ektachrome ( https://business.kodakmoments.com/sites/default/files/files/products/e4000_ektachrome_100.pdf ) and assume you want 50% response in the MTF then you’re looking at around 50lppm, or 1270 lp per inch, so multiplying by 2 to convert to pixels, you get 2540 pixels per inch. Assuming the 150MP image is square then it would be 12250 pixels per side. So the “equivalent” film size for Ektachrome would be 12250 / 2540 or ~5”.
If you took a 5% response level (which is what test charts like USAF 1951 do) then it would be 4572 pixels per side, or just over 2.6” (so a little more than MF).
You can do something similar for every film if you have the MTF curve on the datasheet (Porta 160, for example, would need a slightly smaller piece of film).
8” x 10” would be a good size to be sure you’d exceeded it with pretty much every film.
If you look at the datasheet for Ektachrome ( https://business.kodakmoments.com/sites/default/files/files/products/e4000_ektachrome_100.pdf ) and assume you want 50% response in the MTF then you’re looking at around 50lppm, or 1270 lp per inch, so multiplying by 2 to convert to pixels, you get 2540 pixels per inch. Assuming the 150MP image is square then it would be 12250 pixels per side. So the “equivalent” film size for Ektachrome would be 12250 / 2540 or ~5”.
If you took a 5% response level (which is what test charts like USAF 1951 do) then it would be 4572 pixels per side, or just over 2.6” (so a little more than MF).
You can do something similar for every film if you have the MTF curve on the datasheet (Porta 160, for example, would need a slightly smaller piece of film).
8” x 10” would be a good size to be sure you’d exceeded it with pretty much every film.
flektogon
Veteran Member
But this isn't practical, is it
. However, the best digital FF cameras with around 48 - 64Mp can deliver similar pictures like the best 35mm cameras, better say lenses. By using the best films of course. The only problem is, how to "extract" all those goodies from the film! I see only one way, to make the slides and project them on a (huge) screen.
Thank you. How about if the digital camera is FF?
Something like this (?) Thanks ;-)But this isn't practical, is it
Overrank
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,917
- Solutions
- 14
- Reaction score
- 4,435
I’ve seen CMS 20 quoted at around 250 lp/mm ( https://jpbuffington.com/?p=167 ) which would equate to around 213MP for a 35mm frame. So it really does depend on the film….
Last edited:
flektogon
Veteran Member
Yes, though I never processed colour slides myself! B&W reversal film yesSomething like this (?) Thanks ;-)But this isn't practical, is it
.I mean, noise and stuff like that
I processed plenty of Ektachrome, both 35mm and medium and large formats.Yes, though I never processed colour slides myself! B&W reversal film yesSomething like this (?) Thanks ;-)But this isn't practical, is it
35mm slides are good, but 6x6cm slides are better. The Leitz projectors are better than the Kodak Carousels.
6x6cm stereo slides projected on the special Kodak silver screen are very good indeed. The screen has to be silver rather than white because you use polarized light and polarized glasses. Rollei made a good stereo camera for 120 film in the 1920s.
Good luck finding any of this gear now. It's all gone, like tears in rain.
Don
Broadly speaking, probably 6x7cm.
Kodachrome and ORWO NP15 (B&W neg) are both discontinued.
But which is "the best digital sensor" ?
The one(s) with the highest DR, I guess
flektogon
Veteran Member
No, I've never done this, as I considered it too risky. Something else was the B&W reversal film. Actually, I used it to shoot (Super8) films. I used to buy it (bulk) as DS8, namely Fomapan. At first I had to cut it along into two spools of single Super 8 films and loaded it into (reusable) Super 8 cassettes. Then processed it in a specially large (soviet) tank. The drying was the most difficult part. No one could enter kitchen, where the films were hanging all over. So, I could do this only at the late nightsI processed plenty of Ektachrome, both 35mm and medium and large formats.Yes, though I never processed colour slides myself! B&W reversal film yes
35mm slides are good, but 6x6cm slides are better. The Leitz projectors are better than the Kodak Carousels.
6x6cm stereo slides projected on the special Kodak silver screen are very good indeed. The screen has to be silver rather than white because you use polarized light and polarized glasses. Rollei made a good stereo camera for 120 film in the 1920s.
Good luck finding any of this gear now. It's all gone, like tears in rain.
Don
.Never took 6x6 slides, only 24x36 and 17x24 (two slides in a frame). Still have the Rollei P350A slide projector, but haven't used it over 25 years :-( .
--
Regards,
Peter
Last edited:
neilt3
Senior Member
Depends on what your talking about with regards to best image quality.
If its just resolution your interested in , stick with digital .
The qualities of film are more than just resolution .
Even with digital by the time you get to 24mp , resolution isn't an issue .
If all your doing is pixel peeping , films not for you .
The type of film you use , how its developed , the lenses used and how you process the film either digitally or in a darkroom all have a play on the qualities of the image .
Michael Firstlight
Veteran Member
If one is going to shoot film, I recommend medium format (anywhere from 645 to 6x9 - I prefer 6x7 myself) because at that equivalent resolution when scanned the resulting resolution doesn't matter just like shooting 24, 36, or 48MP digital natively where resolution is no longer an issue unless you crop heavily. I shoot 4x5 mostly to gain perspective control, but it does have a unique "look" over smaller formats I just can't explain when wet printed (less noticeable when scanned, but still different).
Mike
Focus seems off but it looks cleanFrom Hasselblad SWC, 6x6cm. Ektachrome.
Don
flektogon
Veteran Member
Nice!From Hasselblad SWC, 6x6cm. Ektachrome.
Don
Below is scanned and slightly cropped negative (Portra 200) taken with Minolta Autocord (6x6):
--
Regards,
Peter
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum