35mm film = 24 mega pixels??

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
Theoretically, 35mm cameras have infinite resolution as they don't deal in pixels. Closer comparison would be vector graphics.

Your picture can be affected adversely by lighting, lens, film speed and vibration, but these variables affect digital cameras as well.

No, sorry. They don't. The appeture can be treated the same way as a single-slit and the resolution of the camera depends on the particular properties of the light wavelength and the size of the lens. The resolution is limited by the inherent electromagnetic nature of light. To say 'well yea, it depends on lens and lighting' is worthless because without the lens, you'd have no resolution. So 'theorically' yes, you are correct, but according to your 'theoretical' statement, a lens isn't required. Nothing in the universe that focuses light can do it.

a pinhole camera doesnt have a lens and it has an almost infinite depth of field and will focus on anything

Except the light diffracts as it goes through the slit...

 

[silverpig]

Digital will eventually and quite easily pass film in quality and resolution. It's just a matter of time.

 

[0roo0roo]

well yea, but it seems we only go up like 1megapixel a year these days. it'll take a while.

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well yea, but it seems we only go up like 1megapixel a year these days. it'll take a while.

well only 22 more years and we'll have 26 MP cameras. don't know what the hell a consumer point and shoot camera needs with that. poster prints?

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Sid59

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well yea, but it seems we only go up like 1megapixel a year these days. it'll take a while.

well only 22 more years and we'll have 26 MP cameras. don't know what the hell a consumer point and shoot camera needs with that. poster prints?

imagine the cropping possibilities...

 

[Thegonagle]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: DaWhim
I read all film cameras are 20+mega pixel.

Depends on the lens.

Depends on the film too. Remember the Kodak disc? Tiny negatives=poor quality.

 

[Mrburns2007]

depending on the film used it's around 8 million pixels for basic 35 mm camera and cheap film

Here is a website that test the differences between digital and film: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html


check this site out ............................

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Sid59

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well yea, but it seems we only go up like 1megapixel a year these days. it'll take a while.

well only 22 more years and we'll have 26 MP cameras. don't know what the hell a consumer point and shoot camera needs with that. poster prints?

imagine the cropping possibilities...

lol .. originally i was gonna say, it would be good for zoomed boob shots and cropped.

 

[0roo0roo]

camel toe?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: LethalWolfe

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
Theoretically, 35mm cameras have infinite resolution as they don't deal in pixels. Closer comparison would be vector graphics.

Your picture can be affected adversely by lighting, lens, film speed and vibration, but these variables affect digital cameras as well.

Film may not have pixels, but film is made up of light sensitive crystrals which, speaking in generalities, can be compared to pixels. The greater the density of the crystals the greater amount of detail in the picture (just like pixels in digital still cameras). Compare ASA 1600 speed film (which has fewer but larger crystals) to, let's say, 200 speed film (which has more but smaller crystals) and there is a huge difference in image detail. You can zoom in and pick out individual bits of film grain just as easy as you can zoom in and pick out individual pixels.


Lethal

I said camera, not film. I don't think a CCD digital camera will ever be able to touch the detail level from 100 speed film.

To a previous post that I'm too lazy to quote: While I will not argue that a 35mm camera cannot capture infinite amounts of data due to various limitations of the visual light spectrum and the inherent loss of detail associated with passing light through several layers of glass, there is a world of difference between that and the image generated by a CCD.

CCDs create very specific grids. Film has a randomess to it that makes images look more natural and organic even at extreme magnification levels for a given film speed. I'm talking about post-development here, not when you're actually taking the picture.

Sure it will.

We just need a high enough MP CCD. We're well on our way.

6MP cameras cost less than 1000$ now. If you follow Moore's law(which of course is for CPUs.... but CCDs are semiconductors, right? ), we'll be at 36MP in 10 years. The super high end cameras will probably break 100MP by then.

Of course, that's all straight out my ass, but.. you get the point.

I have no doubt that digital photography will virtually replace film as it becomes more and more mature and technology advances. It's just a matter of time.

It has the potential to be better, we're just not there yet.

 

[0roo0roo]

well yea, buts just annoying how digicam makers have been advertising film quality since like 2mpix

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
well yea, buts just annoying how digicam makers have been advertising film quality since like 2mpix

Heh.

 

[McCarthy]

Just like 128kb mp3's were often called "CD quality" when mp3s were first heard of, now you rarely hear people saying that. Funny how group perceptions can change over time.

There's no doubt that 35mm film, heck any film, at this point is better than digital for quality all other things being equal comparing two cameras. There's also no doubt that current digital cameras are well up to the task of 4x6 prints which is what most film ends up as in the first place. So it's rather moot for 99.999% of photographs ever taken.

There's one way that film is clearly vastly superior though. It defies human nature. With a digital camera the user transfers the images to the computer, looks at them, prints a few, saves a few, ditches the rest. Sure, some people archive every picture they take to CDR, but most don't. Who knows how long that CDR will be readable anyway? With film you could throw away the negatives, but assuming there was even one shot on the roll you liked at the time few would. Human nature would have you sort and keep only the best, film interferes with this.

Most of us aren't taking fine art photographs or news shots for the media. We're taking pictures of our lives - our stuff, our friends, our pets, our stalkers. What doesn't seem like a keeper today may be your most treasured snapshot in five years. Pains me to think of all the digital images going to the Recycle Bin because parents are just keeping that one posed shot they were trying to get. It's those snapshots that looked like mistakes at the time that often end up being looked at the most - if they exist.

I realize I'm talking trends, not absolutes. People can throw away prints and negatives as easy as they can hit delete; you can make copies of digital images easier so in that way they should be less likely lost. But I'm just saying this is how most people do things.

Think I'll buy myself a new lens for my SLR for Christmas

Edit: typo

 

[KenGr]

Digital is "better" than film now, if you can pay the price. The 11 to 13 MP cameras from Kodak, Canon, etc. do exceed the capability of film. The 24 MP number is BS. If you do the math, that comes to 166 lines per mm, or 83 line pairs per mm. Yes, 35 mm cameras and film do have that capability but only at optimum conditions and only at the center of the image. In actual practice there are other factors than pure line resolution. Here is an excellent treatment by Norman Koren:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

He concludes that 11 MP beats 35mm and about 16 MP in a 35mm camera could approximately equal medium format.

 

[LS20]

35mm zealots always flaunt this... i think its untrue..following most ppl's false corollary, atleast. ppl associate pixels with quality...ie more pixels = better, clearer, sharper pictures... with good slide film in a slr body with a quality lens the image will be topnotch... yeah, but in my ignorant opinion, i can take way better picture with a typical 5mp digital canon than i can with a typical 35mm setup

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: DaWhim
I read all film cameras are 20+mega pixel.

Depends on the lens.

No it doesn't. It depends on the film. Velvia is pushing 40 megapixels, while Kodak 800 print film is closer to 10.

Film is made up of grains of silver (or other metals). The faster the film the larger the grains, in general. Processing can screw up the grain and make it bigger as well.

Lenses can resolve at whatever levels, but the image projected by the lens does not equal the resolution of the film. Just the sharpness/contrast/color matching.

 

[0roo0roo]

Just like 128kb mp3's were often called "CD quality" when mp3s were first heard of, now you rarely hear people saying that. Funny how group perceptions can change over time.

it still is in advertising, mp3 players always calculate play time by 128kbs cr@p. average person has no clue about lame encoding etc.

 

[DBL]

A lot of people in this thread are misinformed. That 24mp number is very old and has been proven inaccurate. As it currently stands, a 6mp DSLR competes very well with all but the absolute best quality 35mm film. When you compare it to higher ISO film such as 400/800/1600, the 6mp DSLR blows them away. In addition, a more expensive digital such as the Canon 1DS (11mp) compares very well w/ medium format film and is easily better than any 35mm film. Film does not have "infinite resolution". There will come a point in the enlargement process of diminishing returns, where the grain will overpower any more detail available in the negative.

Here is some reading along with tests for those interested;

1DS compared to medium format

Digital Image Quality

 

[DBL]

d.p.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: DBL
A lot of people in this thread are misinformed. That 24mp number is very old and has been proven inaccurate. As it currently stands, a 6mp DSLR competes very well with all but the absolute best quality 35mm film. When you compare it to higher ISO film such as 400/800/1600, the 6mp DSLR blows them away. In addition, a more expensive digital such as the Canon 1DS (11mp) compares very well w/ medium format film and is easily better than any 35mm film. Film does not have "infinite resolution". There will come a point in the enlargement process of diminishing returns, where the grain will overpower any more detail available in the negative.

Here is some reading along with tests for those interested;

1DS compared to medium format

Digital Image Quality

I'm going off pure grain count. Remember that in film the colors are produced by different emulsion layers in the film, rather than by discrete pixels. So grain appears as fuzziness instead of blockiness. For some images this is a good thing, for some it's a bad thing.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: TerryMathews
Theoretically, 35mm cameras have infinite resolution as they don't deal in pixels. Closer comparison would be vector graphics.

Your picture can be affected adversely by lighting, lens, film speed and vibration, but these variables affect digital cameras as well.

No, sorry. They don't. The appeture can be treated the same way as a single-slit and the resolution of the camera depends on the particular properties of the light wavelength and the size of the lens. The resolution is limited by the inherent electromagnetic nature of light. To say 'well yea, it depends on lens and lighting' is worthless because without the lens, you'd have no resolution. So 'theorically' yes, you are correct, but according to your 'theoretical' statement, a lens isn't required. Nothing in the universe that focuses light can do it.

a pinhole camera doesnt have a lens and it has an almost infinite depth of field and will focus on anything

Light defracts through a pinhole. Same thing, Rayleigh criterion still applies, but without the 1.22 scaling factor.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: DBL
A lot of people in this thread are misinformed. That 24mp number is very old and has been proven inaccurate. As it currently stands, a 6mp DSLR competes very well with all but the absolute best quality 35mm film. When you compare it to higher ISO film such as 400/800/1600, the 6mp DSLR blows them away. In addition, a more expensive digital such as the Canon 1DS (11mp) compares very well w/ medium format film and is easily better than any 35mm film. Film does not have "infinite resolution". There will come a point in the enlargement process of diminishing returns, where the grain will overpower any more detail available in the negative.

Here is some reading along with tests for those interested;

1DS compared to medium format

Digital Image Quality

Someone finally answered the question.
Thank you.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Eli
Sure it will.

We just need a high enough MP CCD. We're well on our way.

6MP cameras cost less than 1000$ now. If you follow Moore's law(which of course is for CPUs.... but CCDs are semiconductors, right? ), we'll be at 36MP in 10 years. The super high end cameras will probably break 100MP by then.

Of course, that's all straight out my ass, but.. you get the point.

I have no doubt that digital photography will virtually replace film as it becomes more and more mature and technology advances. It's just a matter of time.

It has the potential to be better, we're just not there yet.

Actually Moore's law doesn't hold for CCD's/CMOS sensors as it does for CPU's. This is b/c noise (digital grain) increases as pixel size becomes smaller. This is why a 3mp image from a DSLR is significantly better than a 3mp image from a point and shoot digital. The pixels on a DSLR are many times larger than a comparable P&S. So, I seriously doubt pixel count is going to follow Moore's Law. Technically, I think it's possible but it would come at cost of diminishing returns. More exciting in my mind would be improvements to dynamic range (film still wins here) and high ISO capabilities.

IOW, I'd take a 14mp camera with negative film dynamic range or greater and clean ISO 3200/6400 images over a 50mp camera with current digital dynamic range and lesser high ISO capabilities. Besides, you 'd only really benefit from the 50mp camera when shooting in IDEAL (lots and lots of light) conditions and even then only when printing at absurdly large sizes (2'x3' or greater).

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by: KenGr
Digital is "better" than film now, if you can pay the price. The 11 to 13 MP cameras from Kodak, Canon, etc. do exceed the capability of film. The 24 MP number is BS. If you do the math, that comes to 166 lines per mm, or 83 line pairs per mm. Yes, 35 mm cameras and film do have that capability but only at optimum conditions and only at the center of the image. In actual practice there are other factors than pure line resolution. Here is an excellent treatment by Norman Koren:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

He concludes that 11 MP beats 35mm and about 16 MP in a 35mm camera could approximately equal medium format.

Better is a subjective term. For most applications digital is comparible to film in terms of image resolution, but that doesn't mean digital is superior to film. For example, HD cameras can capture images comparible to 35mm film cameras, but they still lack the asthetic, the "film look" that people associate w/movies and have come to expect when they go to the theaters.

Both formats have their strengths and weaknesses.


Lethal

 

[Eug]

Most posts I've seen on the subject by people who actually do both digital and film for a living say that once you're into the double digit MP range (eg. 11) you beat even the best film.

Film has the potential of being awesome, but it's a PITA, and most of the time it doesn't live up to its potential anyways. Just how many of you use 25 ISO film anyways?