Read this in a magazine. Any views on it?
btw, how big can 35mm film be printed without loss of quality?
btw, how big can 35mm film be printed without loss of quality?
35mm film equivalent to 8MP worth of image data?
- Thread starter mpenza
- Start date
- Status
May Issue of Petersen's Photographic if I'm not wrong. It's quoted in the article on digital cameras.
the question is not whether digital or film is better; the question is whether 35mm has about 8MP of information, and the answer to that seems a qualified 'Yes'.
Of course, digital has no grain so this leads to the argument as to whether a lower MP but grain-free digital image looks better than a higher-MP scanned 35mm image with grain is another issue....
btw, this was the conclusion to an article written in response to the famous 'D30 better than 35mm review in luminous landscapes' (i've not got the link handy)
Answer to 2nd question: 35mm can print up to A4 comfortably. Can't comment on A3 because I don't have an A3 printer
Of course, digital has no grain so this leads to the argument as to whether a lower MP but grain-free digital image looks better than a higher-MP scanned 35mm image with grain is another issue....
btw, this was the conclusion to an article written in response to the famous 'D30 better than 35mm review in luminous landscapes' (i've not got the link handy)
Answer to 2nd question: 35mm can print up to A4 comfortably. Can't comment on A3 because I don't have an A3 printer
A 4000dpi 35mm scan translates to roughly 5640 x 3760 pixels, which is roughly 21mp. Whether all the 21mp of info is useful, or most of it being grain is another issue. For practical purposes, I believe 6-8mp is more than enough.
The original Luminous Landscape's "Film vs D30" was more skewed towards digital, wherease the 2nd one which has the D60 competing against 35mm film and medium format tends to be a bit more objective and neutral.
The thing about digital is the lack of grain, which lends itself well to interpolation to produce nice big prints. I've seen 10 x 15" and 20 x 30" prints from the S1 Pro which are very impressive. And I've also personally printed 10 x 15" from a D30, which is rather impressive too. As far as film goes, I've got 6mp film scans of Provia 400F and Velvia printed up to A4 size and they do look great. Have not tried A3.
I asked a local lab how big can a 35mm film be enlarged to, and the reply was that given a fine grain film, the maximum practical size is probably around 10 x 15" or so. Beyond that, grain might become an issue, but on the other hand, very large prints are seldom viewed close up.
Regards
CK
The original Luminous Landscape's "Film vs D30" was more skewed towards digital, wherease the 2nd one which has the D60 competing against 35mm film and medium format tends to be a bit more objective and neutral.
The thing about digital is the lack of grain, which lends itself well to interpolation to produce nice big prints. I've seen 10 x 15" and 20 x 30" prints from the S1 Pro which are very impressive. And I've also personally printed 10 x 15" from a D30, which is rather impressive too. As far as film goes, I've got 6mp film scans of Provia 400F and Velvia printed up to A4 size and they do look great. Have not tried A3.
I asked a local lab how big can a 35mm film be enlarged to, and the reply was that given a fine grain film, the maximum practical size is probably around 10 x 15" or so. Beyond that, grain might become an issue, but on the other hand, very large prints are seldom viewed close up.
Regards
CK
if a 35mm only have 8MP worth of data, then sampling at twice the frequency would allow the original quality to be produced...... that means 32MB of data!
i have read somewhere that a good scan of a 35mm film yield a file size of 40++ MB.
but of course they were talking about high end drum scans to kodak PhotoCD formats......
but of course they were talking about high end drum scans to kodak PhotoCD formats......
having a very big file size needn't mean that the amt of image data is high.
it's just like digitizing music. technology do allow very high sampling rates but beyond a certain range, the "extra" will just take up space.
Not good enough. A 48-bit 4000dpi scan from a 35mm film can yield files > 100MB. Of coz, whether all the data is useful is another story.
Regards
CK
prolly true.. i've read some sites..
http://www.dlcphotography.net/Digital vs Film.htm
http://www.netoffices.com/articles/imaging/digitalvsfilm/page3.htm
http://www.dlcphotography.net/Digital vs Film.htm
http://www.netoffices.com/articles/imaging/digitalvsfilm/page3.htm
in the meantime, I've found the website which discusses the film vs digital debate. I guess its mattering less and less because theres no doubt that the current crop of 6mp DSLRs can print to A4 comfortably (and so can 35mm), and A4 printing is about the limit for most people...
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
According to the book Photography by Henry Horenstein and Russell Hart, page 404, a 35mm frame of ISO 100 colour negative film is said to have resolution equivalent to at least 18 million pixels!
- Status
Similar threads
