VISIT WEBSITE >>>>> http://gg.gg/y83ws?6236339 <<<<<<
First you have to keep in mind that the film in comparison to digital debate is a bit miss leading. Depending on the grain size ala. ISO speed the comparable Mp count can range from Mp for speed film to what I have read and there is some debate on this to as high a 75 Mp for 25 speed film or slower. The problem is that the Mp count also derives on sensor sensitivity, actual vs. If using some Tech pan, I heard of a comparable Mp count of over Mp, but that was debatable.
Next you have to consider the ability of the sensor to reproduce the actual image. Regardless of the Mp count, the question comes into how well does the sensor reproduce the image.
Do a search on the internet on pics taken with this beast, and you will see what I mean. All the megapixles in the world wont help if the camera is lousy, but in a small Mp camera like the Nikon DCS, the images were great for what it was. In addition, the other question is the print media. Your out of luck on image quality. Remember silver Halide paper has microscopic grains of silver. Ink jet printers shoot tiny dots of ink that spread. The silver halide paper will be MUCH finer than the ink jet.
Now, the same hold true for file sizes. If you set the camera up the right way, and save the image the right way, you can go as large as a road sign billboard and not see much grain. But remember that at that size, and viewing an image up close is tuff for something large like a 20x30 the image grain will probably not be noticed.
In time you can afford a 20 Mp Med. Then you are really talking. In my opinion the ISO has littler to do with resolution that people think. The issue is not just about megapixels. In past years, many film shooters complained that it would take a 30 or 40 megapixel camera to rival the resolution of 35mm film.
However, over the past decade or so modern technology has progressed quite a bit and there are now several digital cameras that can consistently near, match, or exceed the pure resolution of 35mm film, even at low ISOs for instance, nikon's d2x, canon's 5d and 1dsMKII. One time I took some shots with my 20d at ISO and immediately after took some shots with my 1n with the same lens using velvia iso The detail is cleaner in my 20d's images, and I actually prefer it's image quality.
At this point, the resolution of 35mm isnt that much greater than popular 1. The only thing that would make me want to shoot slides over digital is the larger color tone gamut.
You have to keep in mind that there is more to this issue than resolution, or else we'd all shoot 4x5. I think we can agree that image quality and of course workflow and such, but I wont go into that is the main 'subsection' on the debate.
While film may have a slight edge on resolution depends on the scanner used and the digital camera it is compared to , there are many other factors that go into what we view as a good photograph. As far as color accuracy, digital almost always takes the lead as the initial capture of digital is much more versatile than film. For instance, if you were shooting some landscapes in velvia in austria or something and saw some people that you wanted to take candids of, you might worry about using velvia because it botches skin tones terribly.
This is partly a workflow or convenience issue, but it is still apparent that digital's capture is more versatile and accurate for color, even though there are types of slide film with good color accuracy. This opens up a lot more options when post processing. Not only could many of those things not be done with optical processes, but the original dynamic range captured on film simply wasn't there. I usually used color negative film because it had better dynamic range than slide film, but that was still well below what a good sensor can do today.
If you mean the point where there is about the same amount of detail recorded, perhaps 5 MP, 8 bpp. If you mean the point where you can make an enlargement the same size without feeling that the quality is lacking, perhaps 20 MP, 12 bpp. If you mean the resolution that you can scan a negative and get out all the information, perhaps 50 MP, 16 bbp. Those are of course just ballpark figures, and varies depending on what film you are using, how you measure detail, what you find acceptable, et.
It should however give you an idea of what you could expect. As you say, it's like comparing apples and oranges. We can blow up a negative to a size where you clearly see every grain, without seeing that as a lack of quality. When you blow up a digital image so that you see the pixels, most will feel that the quality is lacking. Generally a digital image needs a higher quality to be perceived as equivalent. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top.
Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. What is the equivalent resolution of a 35mm film [duplicate] Ask Question. Asked 8 years, 10 months ago. Active 8 years, 10 months ago. Viewed k times. Improve this question. Community Bot 1. Come to that, how much will I have spent on petrol in that time? In the overall scheme off things, so far as the money side of it goes, I reckon "free" is a near-enough approximation.
Besides, in reality, I hope and expect that the 20D shutter will last for a good many more than , shots. Hard disc drives, for example, typically have a design life of 5 years, but although a small number fail early, the majority keep on operating without trouble for 10 to 15 years.
But there is a second and more significant factor that makes the extra shots "expensive" rather than "free". This is time.
I don't count the time it takes to actually get the pictures, of course: time spent outdoors looking at birds is never wasted. And I don't think the good lord counts time spent birdwatching against our allotted span of years.
But the more shots you take, the longer you have to spend in front of a computer sorting them out each night. If it takes me 6 or 8 hours not counting travel to take or shots each day - which sounds about right - I find that it takes me almost the same amount of time sitting in front of the computer to sort the darn things out! You have to be utterly ruthless, and yet keep your mind open to see the possibilities in shots that you might at first have thought were nothing special. On a trip, I barely have time to eat and sleep, and never cook, just grab a burger if I'm near a town, or make do with nuts and museli if I'm outback.
Who was the fool who invented the day, and why did he only put 24 hours in it? I seem to be a long way off-topic. Or perhaps not. Klant Well-known member. So what is the eyes resolution, if that can be compared somehow? Thanks to everyone for the great feedback. I've been using 35mm SLR's and medium format for many years and haven't quite convinced myself to invest in a digital SLR yet.
I use a digital compact for snapshots but I still seem to prefer the images I get from film perhaps I'm an old dog reluctant to learn new tricks! Leif Well-known member. Digital V's 35mm I think Leif is dead right and of course it's a very subjective subject. I've used medium format for years, but my 20D is almost as good. I gave the new Canon 5D a brief test the other day and I feel that it could be a cracking camera especially with the right lens.
A professional photographic friend recently had a 6 ft X 4 ft print done from his top end Nikon and said the quality is superb - what more do you want? I'm sure this thread will run and run! I think I'm partly held back because of my investment in manual Nikkor lenses especially some nice wide-angles such as 24mm f2, 35mm f2.
If Nikon would bring out a body with a full-frame sensor compatible with the manual Nikkors I'd be a lot more tempted. Another factor in the film resolution debate, Solent were you refering to colour or monochrome negs? Of course colour negs are inherently lower resolution because of the number of layers of emulsion in total giving an increased emulsion thickness compared to the single layer of monochrome which introduces factors of flare and light bleeding into the emulsion.
For colour I suspect we are pretty well there with 16M pixel. For Monochrome the file grain can vary from 0. But all this is academic because we are using glass lens that have a resolution in the range of 30 - 90 lines per mm dependent of f stop setting and quality of glass. If you want some room to crop or edit then a 3MP would be fine. If you want to print larger, do the math. So there is no hard final answer.
Perception and audience have more to do with it than the difference from MPs. But if the average person on the forum took a shot on ISO average film and compared it to a 8MP shot with lets say the Rebel XT I think the shots would be similar up to 8x Is the best film with the best camera and best lens better than digital?
Well yes. But are you that guy. Do you need the absolute best the world has seen? In most cases digital is right up there with film. The Sony a7 IV is the fourth generation of the company's core a7 full-frame mirrorless camera model, and it's the most advanced yet.
Click through for an in-depth look at Sony's latest full-frame mirrorless ILC. Nik Silver Efex Pro 3, one of the standout components of Nik Collection 4, is a black-and-white conversion tool that goes far further than the grayscale or black-and-white tools built into all-in-one photo apps.
For some users, this app alone might be worth the cost of the whole collection — find out for yourself in our review. The Nikon Z mm F2. Get all the details in our full review. What tripod can support a mm lens and still go on a long hike into the wilderness? We test out six higher-end, thick-legged, modular tripods that are comfortably tall and capable of supporting tremendous amounts of gear.
This group review compares all six models, examining their features, functions and ergonomics in use, both in the studio and out in the field. The Panasonic GH5M2 is a refresh, rather than complete reworking, of the company's image-stabilized, video focused GH5. We didn't find live streaming as reliable as we'd hoped but we appreciated the improved feature set. These capable cameras should be solid and well-built, have both speed and focus for capturing fast action and offer professional-level image quality.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media. If you're looking for the perfect drone for yourself, or to gift someone special, we've gone through all of the options and selected our favorites.
We looked at cameras with selfie-friendly screens, wide-angle lenses, microphone inputs and great video quality, and selected the best. Submit a News Tip! Reading mode: Light Dark. Login Register. Best cameras and lenses. All forums Open Talk Change forum. Started Jun 15, Discussions. Jun 15, So, what does it take to get a picture as good as 35mm? Reply to thread Reply with quote Complain.
Petteri Sulonen's gear list: Petteri Sulonen's gear list. Fujifilm XS. Reply Reply with quote Reply to thread Complain. Jim Shearer wrote: I have read in a couple of magazines that 6 MP would be the same quality as 35mm. Meryl Arbing's gear list: Meryl Arbing's gear list. Meryl, What a great explanation! I agree with your dpi criteria. Everyone else, thanks too. It all helps. Finally, are there any books you would recommend about general photography? Meryl makes a lot of good points. I will offer yet another way to answer this question.
SeanU's gear list: SeanU's gear list. Any questions? My best, Ed -- hide signature Digital is just different than film in so many ways. Jim Shearer wrote: Meryl, What a great explanation! With a good interpolation software like PhotoZoomPro you can enlarge images from postcard size to poster size without a noticable lack of quality Carsten Does PhotoZoomPro also do noise reduction like Neat Image? FIlm technology hasn't stood still over the years and it certainly hasn't gone back I'll take that 12 and 24 asa film over anything being made today, including digital.
At first I was going to say it was all a matter of perception and give you numbers. I find that most people at dpreview are far more critical than the general population. An 8MP shot prints an 8x10 at ppi. Thats about as large as most people want to print. F Forum M My threads.
Comments