How Big is 8MP compared to 35mm Film?

[toadlet]

I was in a photography shop the other day and got talking to a professional photograher who shoots with his medium format camera, as he needs big prints. Scanning images from his medium format @ 300dpi gives him images of around 32MP.

It got me thinking. How big is a 35mm negative in relation to megapixels scanned at 300DPI? How many Megapixels does one have to go before digital cameras offer more resolution than their 35mm film conterparts? Is the the 350Ds 8MP resolution for instance more than that of 35mm res?

Cheers

 

[wouterlr]

--
Wouter

I read somewhere that a 35mm is equivalent to about 21MP. I will try to find the article again.

 

[Jurc]

there is some discussion on the fact that 20D's pixel pitch is so small that it practically out-resolves the capability of the lenses. i see it now and then but i can't really comment on the sole fact.

BUT, provided it is true, if you'd calculate the MPs for a full-frame camera, using the same pixel size and pitch of the 20d's sensor, you'd get the figure that states the ability of the present-time lenses. even if film is capable of resolving more, the lens is the limiting factor and this figure should give you an idea of how far we can currently go with the lenses we have, film or digital..

I was in a photography shop the other day and got talking to a
professional photograher who shoots with his medium format camera,
as he needs big prints. Scanning images from his medium format @
300dpi gives him images of around 32MP.

It got me thinking. How big is a 35mm negative in relation to
megapixels scanned at 300DPI? How many Megapixels does one have to
go before digital cameras offer more resolution than their 35mm
film conterparts? Is the the 350Ds 8MP resolution for instance
more than that of 35mm res?

Cheers

--

Nekdo je moral Josefa K. o'crniti, zakaj ne da bi bil storil kaj slabega, so ga nekega jutra prijeli.

 

[knickles]

I've scanned in a lot of 35mm negative and slide film but only at 2700 dpi. Film grain which is sort of like noise is the biggest limitation. I've found that a 6mp dslr is about equivalent to my results with 400 ISO negative film. The lower the ISO of the film the better the grain structure. Take a look at this article:

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/digital-versus-film-resolution.html?source=rss

...ken

 

[wouterlr]

--
Wouter
I read somewhere that a 35mm is equivalent to about 21MP. I will
try to find the article again.

--

Wouter Some sites with info http://www.tawbaware.com/film_digital.htm http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

 

[Jeff_edge540]

I agree - but 6 mega-pixels is pushing it. I've scanned lots of film and spent lots of time in the darkroom working on 35mm and 6x6cm formats.

I'd say (withou a doubt) that my old Canon G3 pocket camera (4MP) out resolved any 35mm film shot i've taken. The problem is in the film. Film simply cannot resolve higher than 3-4 mega-pixels per frame (yes - you can get a bigger scan off 35mm, but it won't be any sharper).

 

[DavidMillier]

I can guarantee that this thread will contain 150 different opinions.

For what it is worth, I have done quite a bit of research on the web to back up my personal experience and concluded the following:

1. Fine grain, slow speed 35mm colour film is theoretically capable of recording around 25MP worth of information.

2. In practice, you get nothing like this amount of data for a whole load of reasons, each one of which cumulatively degrades the result until in the end you are left with about the equivalent of 8 - 9 MP (DSLR). I should at this point quote all my sources but frankly I can't be bothered - but trust me, once you have worked through 20 or so of these comparisons it becomes fairly obvious where the consensus lies. Do you own searching.

3. A camera like the 1Ds, D2x, 5D will beat 35mm colour film hands down for resolution and grain (even drum scanned at 12000ppi!).

Caveats:

• None of these tests mean anything if they are not done properly with impeccable technique.

• Subjects vary in the amount of detail they contain and the contrast level at which it is placed. This has big effects on the quality of the equipment needed to capture it all and the meaningfulness of tests

• Viewers eyesight and expectations, viewing conditions etc influence findings.

4. Black and white is different - film is sharper.

I was in a photography shop the other day and got talking to a
professional photograher who shoots with his medium format camera,
as he needs big prints. Scanning images from his medium format @
300dpi gives him images of around 32MP.

It got me thinking. How big is a 35mm negative in relation to
megapixels scanned at 300DPI? How many Megapixels does one have to
go before digital cameras offer more resolution than their 35mm
film conterparts? Is the the 350Ds 8MP resolution for instance
more than that of 35mm res?

Cheers

--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

 

[Bobby Timonera]

So says this guy ...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml

If shooting RAW, that is. Disagree if you must, but first show that you have credentials better than this guy.

--
BOBBY TIMONERA, Iligan City, Philippines
http://www.pbase.com/timonera / http://www.photos.ph/timonera

 

[iancrowe]

For what it is worth some number crunching:-

EOS 5D "Full Frame 35mm" sensor 35.8mm x 23.9mm = 12.8Mpix = 122 pixel per mm

EOS 20D sensor 22.5mm x 15mm = 8.1Mpix = 156 pixel per mm

A resolution of 156 pixel per mm would give a Full Frame 35mm image of 20.8Mpix.

Full Frame Medium Format 6 X 6 (56mm x 56mm) gives us 46.7Mpix at 122 pixel per mm or 73.2Mpix at 156 pixel per mm.

The cost of producing a 56mm x 56mm sensor would be very high indeed (you could only get 9 to a standard 300mm wafer and God alone knows what the yeild would be).

Doubtless they are available but they belong to the "If Sir has to ask the price Sir cannot afford it." price realm

 

[Jim Cassatt]

I have always felt that it is unfair to compare scanned 35 mm file to the image from a digital camera. This is a good case in point. At 2700 dpi you get grain articulation. That is the resolution of the scanner is near the size of the grain. As a result you emphasize the grain. I had a scanner that scanned at 2400 dpi. The only really noise free images I got were with scanned Velvia.

 

[dennis tennis]

4. Black and white is different - film is sharper.

That's why I also shoot BW film with my Elan 7 and enjoy the narrower DOF with a FF camera for portraits. I hope one day to get a FF DSLR held a 5D yesterday, very nice

 

[Anthony de Vries]

I was in a photography shop the other day and got talking to a
professional photograher who shoots with his medium format camera,
as he needs big prints. Scanning images from his medium format @
300dpi gives him images of around 32MP.

It got me thinking. How big is a 35mm negative in relation to
megapixels scanned at 300DPI? How many Megapixels does one have to
go before digital cameras offer more resolution than their 35mm
film conterparts? Is the the 350Ds 8MP resolution for instance
more than that of 35mm res?

It all depends on the ISO/ASA value. Very sensitive film, also has very big grain. That limits the resolution.

Digital sensors have a fixed resolution, and get intensity noise on it when increasing sensitivity.

Thus, you need to specifiy the film/sensor sensitivity when comparing digital to film:

Ofcourse, there's many different ways to measure these things.
These are the approximate numbers:

ISO 100 ~ 6 to 8 MP.
ISO 200 ~ 4 to 5 MP
ISO 400 ~ 3 MP.
ISO 800 ~ 2 MP.

Take into account, that although the resolution, thus sharpness are the same, the digital pictures will generally look much better than the scanned film. The digital pictures are much smoother than the scanned film. (Not to mention all the extra post-processing that will improve the images even more.)

Thus: for every day film, digital allready has clearly beaten film.

You have to go to really slow, sensitive film to beat digital:
ISO 50 ~ 12-14 MP
ISO 25 ~ 16-20 MP

Are these relevant? Well, maybe. But I've never even shot film below 100....

There's lots of stories about film being comparable to 70MP or more... That's nonsense. These people only look at the maximum scan resolution of their scanner... They forget that the analog film has a limited resolution too.

 

[Anthony de Vries]

there is some discussion on the fact that 20D's pixel pitch is so
small that it practically out-resolves the capability of the
lenses. i see it now and then but i can't really comment on the
sole fact.

The simply fact that you can do lens test, and measure a sharpness curve for the lens for different apertures, clearly proves that the lens, and not sensor is limiting. If the sensor was limiting, then the lens would seem equally sharp at all settings.

 

[Glenn W.]

Some beleive that the 11MP Canon 1DS surpassed the image quality of Medium Format film...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml

My personal opinion is that the Canon 300D's 6MP surpasses all but the very best 35mm film.

I've no experiance with anything nicer then the 300D... wethter that be another DSLR or Medium Format film, etc...

I was in a photography shop the other day and got talking to a
professional photograher who shoots with his medium format camera,
as he needs big prints. Scanning images from his medium format @
300dpi gives him images of around 32MP.

It got me thinking. How big is a 35mm negative in relation to
megapixels scanned at 300DPI? How many Megapixels does one have to
go before digital cameras offer more resolution than their 35mm
film conterparts? Is the the 350Ds 8MP resolution for instance
more than that of 35mm res?

Cheers

 

[saholz]

I don't care how good his scanner is, they're still scanned copies of the original 35mm images. IMHO, that makes it somewhat less than a true "apples to apples" comaprison.
--
Stan
In the White Mountains of New Hampshire

 

[Bobby Timonera]

Stan,

At the end of the day, what matters for most professional photographers is the digital copy of the image (be they originally digital copies, or scanned from film), usually for submission to publications, to clients. Except for those who sell fine art prints. I can only guess there are more professional photographers who need digital copies more than prints.

I don't care how good his scanner is, they're still scanned copies
of the original 35mm images. IMHO, that makes it somewhat less
than a true "apples to apples" comaprison.

--
BOBBY TIMONERA, Iligan City, Philippines
http://www.pbase.com/timonera / http://www.photos.ph/timonera