We all know the many advantages of digital cameras. But does anyone have a answer to the above question?
bonfire said:We all know the many advantages of digital cameras. But does anyone have a answer to the above question?
mpenza said:just wanted to add that having the ability to scan at 5400 dpi does not necessarily mean that film contains that amount of data (i.e. 40MP worth of data).
suhaimig said:You may refer to an article in Photographic magazine, explain what i had said.
mpenza said:They may not be right all the time. Not everyone knows sampling theory.
ST1100 said:hwchoy - i don't know if there is a Venquist theorem around, but from your description, it sounds like the Nyquist Theorem. It states that to get data at a certain frequency, you need to sample at at least double the frequency. But like i said, most the data beyond ~2500dpi is purely grain. On normal ISO400 neg film, you see big big blobs of film grain on 2700dpi scans.
ST1100 said:i've done about 1-2 hundred rolls of scanned film, including negatives, slides and BWs. Then i migrated to a 10D, which has about 6 mpix. My scanner scans at 2700dpi, giving equivalent data to a 8mpix digicam. My favourite print size is A3, and the occasional A4.
If you're not on a pixel count, and concentrating instead on the word 'ourperform', then i confidently say that the 10D decisively and completely thrashes the image quality of scanned film.
i would also add the comment that while you can get about 6000dpi from the highest res BW film, 99% of the time, your system (film, camera, lens, technique) limits your shots to around 2000dpi at best. (And if you habitually shoot at [1/focal length] shutter speed, you get about half that resolution.) As such, this discussion on numbers is purely technical, unless you're a hardcore tripod user.
hwchoy - i don't know if there is a Venquist theorem around, but from your description, it sounds like the Nyquist Theorem. It states that to get data at a certain frequency, you need to sample at at least double the frequency. But like i said, most the data beyond ~2500dpi is purely grain. On normal ISO400 neg film, you see big big blobs of film grain on 2700dpi scans.
Bonfire, if you're really asking about the comparison of image quality between digital and film, i suggest you check out
http://www.normankoren.com
He also discusses in depth other issues besides pixel count: dynamic range, colour/contrast, scanning film, etc. Just skip the overly technical parts. Just comparing pixels does not give a complete picture.
Throw away spec. take 2 cameras and shoot similar subject on tripod. Print them on paper and see which you like. Result matters not spec. then decided what you like best. If want to compare on screen, you can do also but you are comparing what scanners can produce what result and how this results look like. Meaning how good the scanner is or the scan result is. Nothing to do with the film. :nono:bonfire said:We all know the many advantages of digital cameras. But does anyone have a answer to the above question?