Reading mode: Light Dark

digital vs.film...

Go to last post
V

video500

Member
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I would like to know how many MPs are necessary to achieve parity with 35mm film (assuming professional sensors) ?
How many MPs to achieve parity with medium format film?

My guess is 6MPs for 35mm & 12MPs for medium format and I'm wondering if I'm off base or in the neighborhood.
 
the subject says it all
video500 said:
I would like to know how many MPs are necessary to achieve parity
with 35mm film (assuming professional sensors) ?
How many MPs to achieve parity with medium format film?
My guess is 6MPs for 35mm & 12MPs for medium format and I'm
wondering if I'm off base or in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
 
to Peter Dougenik...Does it make you feel good to talk down to someone because they work in a different medium. I feel sorry for you. I was actually addressing the question to someone who could engage in intellegent dialogue, obviously something that you are not capable of.
Peter Dougenik said:
video500 said:
I would like to know how many MPs are necessary to achieve parity
with 35mm film (assuming professional sensors) ?
How many MPs to achieve parity with medium format film?
My guess is 6MPs for 35mm & 12MPs for medium format and I'm
wondering if I'm off base or in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Too many variables for a suscinct answer.

From my Olympus 3030 using a 700 K jpeg file I can make an excellent 8 X 10 print on my HP 970.

From a 2.8 meg jpeg file from a D100 I can print an 11 X 14 that looks as good as anything taken with a Bronica and printed at a lab.

Those same digital files when printed at the lab don't look as good. Go figure.

People I've spoken with report getting large professional grade photos from a Nikon D1 that creates a 2.7 meg file.

Good Luck
 
video,

my problem isn't that you work in a different meduim.
the issue isn't that you have an invalid question.
it's good that you are trying to learn new things.

perhaps you are new to this style of discussion resource and aren't aware of this, but just about every question that has been asked around here in the past few years is still sitting right here for all to see. I HAVE engaged in intellegent dialogue on this exact subject multiple times over the past 4 years on this very site, as have many, many others. Rehashing the same issues over and over and over again is not only frustrating to those of us that use this site as a resource on a daily basis, it's also impolite to the host because it wastes his resources, and impolite to the users because it slows things down.

There are almost no questions that can be asked that haven't been asked already. All I ask is that people spend 5mins of their time searching the forums for the answers BEFORE posting the same questions over again. If you can't find the information you seek then by all means post a new topic. If you have a question about the information you find post a reply to that thread and it will bump back to the top where people will revisit the issue.

So my apologies if you were offended by my curt answer, I didn't have time to elaborate. it would be nice if we had a few forum FAQs that stuck to the top of the list, it might head off some of these redundent questions.

Peter D.
http://www.dougenikphoto.com
video500 said:
Peter Dougenik said:
video500 said:
I would like to know how many MPs are necessary to achieve parity
with 35mm film (assuming professional sensors) ?
How many MPs to achieve parity with medium format film?
My guess is 6MPs for 35mm & 12MPs for medium format and I'm
wondering if I'm off base or in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
There are a lot of variables that make this difficult to answer.

I think it can be said with little controversy the the 11MP 1Ds definitely has more detail than 35mm colour film at any print size.

Many people also consider that it produces more agreeable picture quality than 645. But here a caveat has to be added: ultimately medium format will hold up better for very large prints. I would imagine that for prints up to 19 x 13inch the lack of grain in the 1Ds would win most people over.

[Same goes for 14n].

It will be interesting to see images from the 8MP 1Dii. I expect that it will have roughly the resolution of 35mm film with the digital lack of grain. This should mean it will also challenge 645 for a lot of purposes.

And if I'm right and the next generation D2x has a 'mere' 8MP that should also be good enough for anything up to about 19 x 13.

A lot of Ifs I suppose but I'm hopeful...
video500 said:
I would like to know how many MPs are necessary to achieve parity
with 35mm film (assuming professional sensors) ?
How many MPs to achieve parity with medium format film?
My guess is 6MPs for 35mm & 12MPs for medium format and I'm
wondering if I'm off base or in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
 
video500 said:
I would like to know how many MPs are necessary to achieve parity
with 35mm film (assuming professional sensors) ?
How many MPs to achieve parity with medium format film?
My guess is 6MPs for 35mm & 12MPs for medium format and I'm
wondering if I'm off base or in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
I began to deliver superior print quality when the megapixels passed 4.

My D100 blows is far better than my Nikon negatives except when shot with kodachrome and large scans are made. I am really looking at a M645 that is 6 megapixel with almost no noise or dust problems. I think the film issue will not be a consideration very soon. The market base to support photofinsihing at an affordable level is evaporating. Only custom labs will exist and we all know their costs are unbelivable. I used to run a large lab.

If you are doing high end work and can afford film and are comfortable with it continue to use it. The rest of the world has decided that 6-8 megapixels will do almost all location of event work, while you need 6-12 for studio work. Your high end backs produce 12-44 megapixel images but cost $20,000 plus. The pirmary cost of image making is labor. You need to look at your workflow and decide what you need and learn to use it. I have talked to some event photographers who like the E-1 becuase it needs little post processing. My lab has digital correction for specific camers and can produce high qaulity without photoshop work from my D100.
I still shoot 120 when I want really good quality but watch the money,ouch!
--
charleslmims
 
the link references a study which basically says that pro-sumer DSLRs (such as the Canon 10D) match film at ISO 100 and exceed film as ISO increases. pro DSLRs (such as the 1Ds) match film at ISO 50 and significantly exceed film as ISO increases.

there are other details and qualifications but i'll leave that to your further study...dav
--
don't wait for technology -- it won't wait for you
 
video500 said:
Thanks for the great response!!!
Click to expand...
I have two bodies the D100 and the FUji S2. I only print up to 12x18 but it is pretty big. WHat I can see is:
The D100 match my best film photo. Usually the D100 is better

The S2 is better 100% of the time of my film photos. I can only think that at bigger size there is even a bigger gap.

Film is dead, the grain is too much, the resolution isn't higher. Naturally there is people that prefers Vinile records to high resolution digital sound and for the same reason I will always find somebody that will think differently from me about digital photography. I will never go back to film though.

--
Regards
Gabriele Sartori
Bay Area, CA
--------------------
Equipment list in profile
 
Rather than being a snot why don't you help out by posting a couple of links, with a note that you got to this by searching. It can be kinda hard for new people to formulate the right search terms to bring up all the right discussions. And afterall this is a newsgroup. If you don't want to answer questions then don't. But slapping people interested in getting answers is just rude.

Why people in this newsgroup need to lambast anybody that dares ask a question is beyond me.
Peter Dougenik said:
my problem isn't that you work in a different meduim.
the issue isn't that you have an invalid question.
it's good that you are trying to learn new things.

perhaps you are new to this style of discussion resource and aren't
aware of this, but just about every question that has been asked
around here in the past few years is still sitting right here for
all to see. I HAVE engaged in intellegent dialogue on this exact
subject multiple times over the past 4 years on this very site, as
have many, many others. Rehashing the same issues over and over
and over again is not only frustrating to those of us that use this
site as a resource on a daily basis, it's also impolite to the host
because it wastes his resources, and impolite to the users because
it slows things down.

There are almost no questions that can be asked that haven't been
asked already. All I ask is that people spend 5mins of their time
searching the forums for the answers BEFORE posting the same
questions over again. If you can't find the information you seek
then by all means post a new topic. If you have a question about
the information you find post a reply to that thread and it will
bump back to the top where people will revisit the issue.

So my apologies if you were offended by my curt answer, I didn't
have time to elaborate. it would be nice if we had a few forum
FAQs that stuck to the top of the list, it might head off some of
these redundent questions.

Peter D.
http://www.dougenikphoto.com
video500 said:
Peter Dougenik said:
video500 said:
I would like to know how many MPs are necessary to achieve parity
with 35mm film (assuming professional sensors) ?
How many MPs to achieve parity with medium format film?
My guess is 6MPs for 35mm & 12MPs for medium format and I'm
wondering if I'm off base or in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I love to shoot TMZ or Delta 3200 in everything from Rolei 35T to F5's. Oh ya, TriX and hi speed IR. Man, my old Dimage X can kill these for resolution. I wouldn't even bother shooting the same subjects with my D1X, but there's the point. All these films and digital cameras have a place. Remove vs. with and to get all you can from your photos. Lovin' my new scanner too, now I'm really mixing the formats up. Just don't try to wet process flash cards lol!

SB
video500 said:
I would like to know how many MPs are necessary to achieve parity
with 35mm film (assuming professional sensors) ?
How many MPs to achieve parity with medium format film?
My guess is 6MPs for 35mm & 12MPs for medium format and I'm
wondering if I'm off base or in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
 
Shaun Bell said:
SB
video500 said:
I would like to know how many MPs are necessary to achieve parity
with 35mm film (assuming professional sensors) ?
How many MPs to achieve parity with medium format film?
My guess is 6MPs for 35mm & 12MPs for medium format and I'm
wondering if I'm off base or in the neighborhood.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The infrastructure to support film is rapidly declining. Kodak will not sell enough film to continue to manufacture it at a resonible price. Most pro labs are at break even unless they are into digital. The EPA has had finishing under the gun for a long time. Fugi has paper processes that only use water.

I love not having to store negatives and manualy spot negatives. Film is on a downward spiral except for low end throw away cameras and very high end sheet film. Even these can be replaced by digital in a short time.

I was in the finishing business for 15 years. The one hours are only in place to promote traffic in a store. When the traffic drops the labs will go. They are a pain in the bottom line to keep open. Charles L. Mims
--
charleslmims
 
If you're doing low volume large, fine-art prints (remember, I said large) MF and LF still offers better bang for your buck. 6MP doesn't equal 645 let alone 6x7 for some applications. (Yes, for many applications it is better. I"m not arguing that. But 6MP isn't so hot when you get to super A3 and above.) Go to outbackphoto.com and look at the comparison between 4x5 and the 1Ds. The 4x5 stomps all over it. But image quality and resolution isn't everything. Convenience, dynamic range and lens selection are important as well when putting together a system. And in the end lighting and composition are more important in the success of an image than sheer resolution. :)
 
You aren't kidding! The wife and I went into a small strip mall photo shop to get a couple of passport phots ($8.95...how can he survive?)

While waiting for the Polaroid to develop I noticed a rack of disposable Kodak Cameras on close-out for $6.99. I mentioned to my wife that she should buy a handful and could probably sell them on "Antiques Roadshow 2010" for hundreds of dollars each.

Rich
Charles L. Mims said:
The infrastructure to support film is rapidly declining. Kodak will
not sell enough film to continue to manufacture it at a resonible
price.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Overrank
Resolution question from 120 film scanning
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Overrank
Overrank
T
Interested in a more traditional MF body with a digital back.
Replies
10
Views
42
Gandolphi
G
S
Comparing 6x9+ on Fuji GFX vs film
Replies
0
Views
21
sloth_mentality
S
Q
Which Light Meter to Buy?
Replies
19
Views
225
Bob
B
T
Educational Resources: Digital Darkroom
Replies
2
Views
242
Gato Amarillo
G

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top