35mm film = 24 mega pixels??

[slackerinabox]

I read in a text book that 35mm film's resolution is close to 24 mega pixel - is this true?? I get decent 4x6 prints out of my 4 mp camera but if this is true, I think I'll be holding on to my nikon 35mm slr

 

[FrustratedUser]

It's pretty damn high but I don't know exactly.
Sounds about right to me.

 

[beer]

That sounds about right.

Google 'rayleigh criterion' for equivalent resolutions of film cameras.

 

[DaWhim]

I read all film cameras are 20+mega pixel.

 

[beer]

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

Depends on the lens.

 

[zCypher]

makes my el cheapo 1.3 digicam seem even sh1ttier now

 

[Ferocious]

I've yet to see any 4 meg digital camera even touch a good 35mm film in terms of quality yet.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
I read in a text book that 35mm film's resolution is close to 24 mega pixel - is this true?? I get decent 4x6 prints out of my 4 mp camera but if this is true, I think I'll be holding on to my nikon 35mm slr

Yeah, that sounds about right.

But unless you have the need to print poster size prints, then i think your 4mp camera is capable.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
I've yet to see any 4 meg digital camera even touch a good 35mm film in terms of quality yet.

What size prints are you talking about? And are you using the appropriate paper and a good photo printer?

 

[slackerinabox]

I think that people are shocked and amazed by digital photography because the gimmick (instant preview) and economics allow them to experiment more.. If all these guys who learn so much on their beloved a70s picked up a good 35mm and QUALITY film (not the cheap $1.99 asa800 stuff) they might be amazed.. Heck, my $90 vivitar slr rocks.. i just hope that digital leads to more people discovering 35mm again

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
I think that people are shocked and amazed by digital photography because the gimmick (instant preview) and economics allow them to experiment more.. If all these guys who learn so much on their beloved a70s picked up a good 35mm and QUALITY film (not the cheap $1.99 asa800 stuff) they might be amazed.. Heck, my $90 vivitar slr rocks.. i just hope that digital leads to more people discovering 35mm again

It's not the 'gimmick' that people are amazed with... it's the convenience and price. How many 'keepers' do you normally get out of a roll of film? Less than half for me, and i remember reading that a professional photographer would be lucky to get 1 or 2 good photos from an entire roll.

EDIT: gah, ended msg too early.

Anyways, digital cameras are great for beginners and amateurs. They can learn the nuisances of good photography, without having to waste film, money, and development time. All they need to do is take pictures, thousand and thousands of pictures, and pick over the ones they like. I remember in photography class, we would go out with our cameras and a couple of rolls of film, and take pictures. Take the pictures, and you do'nt even get to learn as you go, because you don't get to see your mistake. Once you're done for the day, go back to class, and start developing them... which takes awhile too. Then you can look over what you did right and what you did wrong. I'm not too sure how current classes are, but i would imagine that if they used quality digital cameras, the experience would be much better.

 

[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.

 

[slackerinabox]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
I think that people are shocked and amazed by digital photography because the gimmick (instant preview) and economics allow them to experiment more.. If all these guys who learn so much on their beloved a70s picked up a good 35mm and QUALITY film (not the cheap $1.99 asa800 stuff) they might be amazed.. Heck, my $90 vivitar slr rocks.. i just hope that digital leads to more people discovering 35mm again

It's not the 'gimmick' that people are amazed with... it's the convenience and price. How many 'keepers' do you normally get out of a roll of film? Less than half for me, and i remember reading that a professional photographer would be lucky to get 1 or 2 good photos from an entire roll.

EDIT: gah, ended msg too early.

Anyways, digital cameras are great for beginners and amateurs. They can learn the nuisances of good photography, without having to waste film, money, and development time. All they need to do is take pictures, thousand and thousands of pictures, and pick over the ones they like. I remember in photography class, we would go out with our cameras and a couple of rolls of film, and take pictures. Take the pictures, and you do'nt even get to learn as you go, because you don't get to see your mistake. Once you're done for the day, go back to class, and start developing them... which takes awhile too. Then you can look over what you did right and what you did wrong. I'm not too sure how current classes are, but i would imagine that if they used quality digital cameras, the experience would be much better.

Well, I agree that it was unfair to call digital's charms "gimmicks"... It is convenient and it is very economical... I'm taking a 16mm film course (after taking 3 years worth of digital video production) and film frustrates the hell out of me... We'd waste 8 hours filming only to find that the exposure was off by a notch or the gate was too tight - and you only find out after you spend money processing the film... BUT, with time, I believe my knowledge of 16mm film would give me more control over the final product and will eventually allow me to do more...It's hard to explain but a GOOD film camera man can do amazing things with film while digital video always looks like digital video.. i'm going off on a tangent simply because I know more about the film/dv debate.. but, yeah, you guys should get a used 35mm camera too - you can do amazing things with film.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Moralpanic

It's not the 'gimmick' that people are amazed with... it's the convenience and price. How many 'keepers' do you normally get out of a roll of film? Less than half for me, and i remember reading that a professional photographer would be lucky to get 1 or 2 good photos from an entire roll.

I learned photography pretty thoroughly using several 35mm film SLRs. I know enough to be able to use those 20-30 y/o manual SLRs no problem. Although yes film quality is still unmatched by consumer digicams, the flexibility, convenience of digital cameras for casual users is incredible. I haven't touched the 1k+ worth of film equipment I have ever since I started using digicams.

Yes, the fact is most shots don't get used. With the advent of giant memory cards, digicams have a large advantage in that you just keep shooting and use brute force to get more good pictures. Never worry about running out of film. I shot 400+ digicam pics at my cousins wedding. To do that in film I'd need about 15 rolls. 3-4+ megapixels is good enough for 8x10s, which is about as big as most people will use anyways.

 

[beer]

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.

 

[MustangSVT]

my eye = 239804 zillion pixels.

 

[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

 

[Sid59]

great film scanner is great. resolutions are great. that's with the 35mm format.

start using large format cameras and the film scanners will pump out images HUGE,.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: Sid59
great film scanner is great. resolutions are great. that's with the 35mm format.

start using large format cameras and the film scanners will pump out images HUGE,.

unless your great film scanner SCRATCHES YOUR FUSKING FILM<!!!!!!!!!!

sorry had to rant. ours did that on tuesday. im still pissed

 

[TechnoKid]

Hmm, from my understanding, while film may have an "indefinite" resolution (partly because of the limitations of the equipment/methods to which we measure the resolution of film with), digital has (or can have) less grain compared to film, so the picture will appear sharper.

I am in awe at the price [and quality] of some of the digital backs for the medium format cameras such as hasselblad which are made by companies like kodak. $15,000 just for the 16mp back from kodak. Thats almost $1000 per megapixel. Lens costs money too. Add the price of the body, and whoa, at that price were just begining to talk exspensive.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
I read in a text book that 35mm film's resolution is close to 24 mega pixel - is this true?? I get decent 4x6 prints out of my 4 mp camera but if this is true, I think I'll be holding on to my nikon 35mm slr

That's the film itself, mind you. It all has to do with your camera's ability to focus. If you can't focus the details into the grain of the film, it's worthless.

Plus... remember that different film has different grain. I know this from working in the photo lab at Walgreens. Given the same brand and quality level (ignoring generics or Kodak High Definition), lower speed film will have sharper resolution and greater color accuracy, but higher speed film will have resolution that is more dull in oder to capture fast action and low light.

 

[LethalWolfe]

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.

Never say never. Compare digital cameras of 5 years ago to digital cameras of today. Night and day difference. It's only a matter of time before digital can capture the same amount of detail that film can.

Now, I do agree that the random, organic quality, that film has gives it something that digital just can't match. Even in the picture taking proccess there are tricks/effects that you can do to create very unique images on film that just aren't possible w/digital. Also, the organic and random nature of film, and analog video, can help hide it's imperfections. Many times artifcating in analog video is unnoticed because it kind of blends w/the rest of the image, but the harsh, blocky artifacting in the digital world stands like a sore thumb.


Lethal

 

[Sid59]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: Sid59
great film scanner is great. resolutions are great. that's with the 35mm format.

start using large format cameras and the film scanners will pump out images HUGE,.

unless your great film scanner SCRATCHES YOUR FUSKING FILM<!!!!!!!!!!

sorry had to rant. ours did that on tuesday. im still pissed

doh .. that's not fun or good. i'd be pissed off if my negs got scratched. i'd love to get some of my bw film in a scanner. too lazy to make prints the long / hard way.