Film vs Digital

[xrium]

Hi,
would like to know what is the average pixels that can I get when using film camera...any metric for the comparison???

[reno77]

Originally Posted by xrium Hi, would like to know what is the average pixels that can I get when using film camera...any metric for the comparison???

Here you go knock yourself out . http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml
In practice a 6MP DSLR can give quality equivalent to 35mm film.

[ricohflex]

Originally Posted by xrium Hi, would like to know what is the average pixels that can I get when using film camera...any metric for the comparison???

If I am not mistaken, 35mm Velvia or Kodachrome can give 24 Million Pixels.
Technical Pan black and white even higher.

[sabahan]

I have do a direct print from slide myself in the darkroom,the image is so '3D',not even my Canon 1D MKII come close to the quality,ofcoz normal print in the lab depands on the scanner used and the setting.

So my conclusion is the digital not even can come close to any film now adays,provided that the film is direct print using the traditional way.

[Reyon]

Film user here
Just got a 350D

this is my first impression of Digital images
I used to scan my negatives with CoolScan V

digital
- When blow up, distortion is visible.

Film
- When blow up, still remain its details and sharpness

Still user my Eos 30 as primary camera for normal shots
For wedding/event, I will use 350D for fast result.

[XXX Boy]

Originally Posted by reno77 Here you go knock yourself out . http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml In practice a 6MP DSLR can give quality equivalent to 35mm film.

ARE YOU THAT SURE???

[bpribadi]

Just trying to be realistic in one side, and 'theoristic' in the other side

I used to use EOS 5 with film in the old days, and I like to blow up the print to 10"x15" (the lab call it 10R wide). Now I use digicam most of the time.

First, being 'theoristic':
If you guys analyzing lens, you might be familiar with MTF diagram, there we see that the highest parameter is sometime 40 lines per mm, sometime 100 lines per mm. Let's take the highest, 100 lines / mm. So film size is 24mm x 36mm, means 2400 x 3600 = 8.64 Megapixel

Maybe ISO 25 film (the good old Ektar 25) or ISO 64 chrome has higher resolution than that, but you will need a very high-end lens to make use of it.

So I would say realistically, for normal ISO 100 negative that most people use, and average lenses, it is equal to 8.64 Mp of digicam. That's for me being 'theoristic'

Second, being 'realistic':
Just base on experience with 10"x15" prints:
> Normal ISO 100 negative (Fuji REALA was my favorite), already become grainy at that size.
> Normal 4Mp digicam (I use Canon G2) shows no grain at that size, but shows all the digital 'distortion' to some extend, like sharpening halo, color shift at shadow, unnatural looking hair, purple fringing, and sometime jaggies.

So to my eyes film does produce more natural looking prints than digital. But at the right condition and good lighting, digital can produce nice print without any grain. My brother print 16R from G2 with good result.

As for resolution, to my eyes, base on my experience, normal ISO 100 negative film is about equal to 6Mp digital (DLSR with decent lens). Can be more or less depend on the film and the development. So the one who says negative is equal with 24 Mp maybe refering to medium format (4.5cm x 6cm), or 35mm chrome ISO 64 under the best condition. But in general, I agree with statement saying that normal 35 mm film is about the same as 6Mp - 8Mp digital. Confirmed with my own experience.