# Resolution Difference: Film vs Digital



## Rekd (Dec 28, 2009)

A while back I heard that film resolution was miles ahead of anything digital, in it's ability to make large prints.

If I took a top of the line 35mm film camera and a top of the line digital camera with the same quality lens, which would give the biggest, better quality print size?


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 28, 2009)

Rekd said:


> A while back I heard that film resolution was miles ahead of anything digital, in it's ability to make large prints.
> 
> If I took a top of the line 35mm film camera and a top of the line digital camera with the same quality lens, which would give the biggest, better quality print size?



If you are only talking resolution then digital images from higher quality sensors from 10-12 Megapixels and up give equal or better resolution than film. There are major differences in 'look' between film grain and digital images.

However good PPing and good printing will produce marvelous prints from digital images that match anything from film.

There is also a difference in dynamic range - film can be greater - but that can also be managed easily in digital.

To sum: this isn't really a technology discussion anymore.  It is now a choice of what you want your image to look like and how you want to shoot that determines film or digital.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 28, 2009)

Film actually has amazing resolution capabilities, and so do good digital sensors shot with a good lens on a tripod-mounted camera with good technique.

Home

M9, part 8B

One of the largest single limitations is the technique of the photographer: accurate focus, mirror lock-up, and a good tripod, and overall technique like a smooth, vibration-free shutter release. The newer, higher-MP cameras like the 18 to 24 MP d-slrs have shown that shot discipline is needed to actually translate the capabilities of a high-MP count sensor to the image files; with slightly off focusing, or a crummy tripod, or a poorly-chosen lens, or a lens aperture that is too small and causes diffraction--any of those problems and the new high MP count cameras turn in image files that are nowhere near the upper limit--of either film, or digital.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 28, 2009)

With film, the camera doesn't matter (as far as resolution), the film matters.

Not all films have the same resolving power.

Films like Rollei Ortho 25 can resolve more than 300 lines per mm...  If you think of a line as 2 pixels (one black, one white), I'm pretty sure that's over 100MP...  Even if a line was only 1 pixel - 50MP+ is still pretty good.


BTW...

Why is this in "Off Topic Chat"?  This is certainly 'on' topic...


----------



## Mitica100 (Dec 28, 2009)

^
+1

I remember shooting Tech Pan, from a 35mm frame one could make an enlargement equaling  (same size photo) of a 4x5 negative. The problems with Tech Pan: 1) it was discontinued five years ago; 2) finicky at development. But results were spectacular when shot at ISO of 8.

*More...*


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 29, 2009)

The main method of comparing the performance of different films is to compare their Modulation Transfer Functions (and if you don't know what an MTF is and you claim to know about film, well shame on you. Google it).
It is possible to measure digital performance in a similar manner and so a meaningful way of comparing the performance of film and digital is possible.
Personally I can't see the point. It's like asking an artist to compare a pencil with a pen: they do a similar job in a similar way but have different qualities, strengths and weaknesses.
But if such exercises really are of interest to you then start with these links:
Digital cameras vs. film, part 1
Imatest - Sharpness


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 29, 2009)

Hertz is right. Don't get lured into looking at equipment and resolution as the point of photography or you'll end up as a pixel-peeper who takes pictures only in order to prove the  technical capability of the equipment set. This is liking eating well only so you'll have great bowel movements. 

Decide what you want to take pictures of and how you want the pictures to look and then get equipment that will do that the way you like.


----------



## Rekd (Dec 29, 2009)

Very good answers. Thanks to all of you for taking the time to explain the differences. I learned a lot.

So the differences in style and use aside, is it safe to say that up until a couple of years ago film was better for making large prints than digital, and that even today under the right conditions film will allow you larger prints?


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 29, 2009)

Why son concerned about print size?

You can take a photo from 35mm film or a 6MP digital camera and blow it up to the size of a billboard....and it will look just fine (as long as you view it from the appropriate viewing distance).


----------



## duncanp (Dec 29, 2009)

hmm i'd like to see a scan back vs a 4x5 plate camera comparison why is it that when people talk about how far mediums can go more often than not they're talking about them in their smallest forms?


----------



## Rekd (Dec 29, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> Why son concerned about print size?
> 
> You can take a photo from 35mm film or a 6MP digital camera and blow it up to the size of a billboard....and it will look just fine (as long as you view it from the appropriate viewing distance).



Strictly curiosity. I was discussing the advances of digital cameras with a friend and he brought up the premise that film could print much larger than digital and still look good. 

I'm not planning on going back to film any time soon, I was just wondering. :mrgreen:


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 29, 2009)

Rekd said:


> Strictly curiosity. I was discussing the advances of digital cameras with a friend and he brought up the premise that film could print much larger than digital and still look good.



There are so many assumptions he is making here that really don't mean anything, it is just wise not to argue with him about it.  Smile, walk away and maybe look for a large rock.


----------



## Rekd (Dec 29, 2009)

The_Traveler said:


> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> > Strictly curiosity. I was discussing the advances of digital cameras with a friend and he brought up the premise that film could print much larger than digital and still look good.
> ...



Argue? Find a rock? :meh:

We're friends, talking about cameras, a few years ago. There was no argument at all. I brought it up here because something in the 7D vs 5DMII thread reminded me about it. That's all. :mrgreen:


----------



## Dwig (Dec 29, 2009)

Rekd said:


> ...the premise that film could print much larger than digital and still look good....



Any statement like that meaningless, and therefore inaccurate, simply because "film" is too undefined a term. There are many, many different films with a massive range of detail retention. Also, there are a range of digital sensors, all of varying resolution. Third, the statement makes no reference for the formats being compared.

Unless the comparison matches format and ISO or clearly mentions the differences it is invalid, period. When an excessively vague statement like "film beats digital" it should be ignored. The person making the statement is ignorant or thinks you are.

A British TV show did a comparision about a year ago, or so. They made a massive enlargement from each a 35mm film image (Kodachrome ??) and a digital image shot on a camera that had a sensor that matched the 35mm image in size. The enlargements were several stories tall and were hung over the outside of a multi-story building for comparison viewing. Care was taken to get very similar color, contrast, and brightness. The bottom line was that there was no real difference. 

In general, today's state of the art digital sensors beat film for detail retention when the formats match and common moderate ISOs are used. When high ISOs are used film suffers faster than digital making digital's lead even greater. Only the very highest resolution B&W films challenge, and possibly beat, digital when formats match.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 29, 2009)

The_Traveler said:


> This is liking eating well only so you'll have great bowel movements.



:lmao: Man traveler you made my day, and nearly made me have a bowel movement of my own. Oh god the the tears on my face from that laugh. :lmao:


----------



## usayit (Dec 29, 2009)

Wow Traveler... you actually worked in bowel movements into the topic of photography.

That's a feat!


----------



## djacobox372 (Dec 29, 2009)

I think it's safe to say that digital has just about equaled or surpassed pro-quality film in terms of resolution for a given size sensor/film area. 

BUT, the largest digital sensors available today are only 5x4 cm; that's only slightly bigger then 35mm film.  A 6x7 medium format negative will trounce any digital slr.  And then there's the costs difference $300 for a medium format film slr, or $30,000 for a medium format digital slr with less performance.


----------



## djacobox372 (Dec 29, 2009)

Dwig said:


> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> > ...the premise that film could print much larger than digital and still look good....
> ...



What digital camera do I use when comparing it to a 6x7 medium format film slr??  There isn't any.

To say you have to match sensor to film size to make a fair comparison is hogwash, by that knowledge some point and shoots may outperform a D3X, as their tiny little sensors do more with less space then the D3's big sensor.


----------



## gsgary (Dec 30, 2009)

Dwig said:


> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> > ...the premise that film could print much larger than digital and still look good....
> ...




It was the Gadget Show


----------



## gsgary (Dec 30, 2009)

djacobox372 said:


> I think it's safe to say that digital has just about equaled or surpassed pro-quality film in terms of resolution for a given size sensor/film area.
> 
> BUT, the largest digital sensors available today are only 5x4 cm; that's only slightly bigger then 35mm film.  A 6x7 medium format negative will trounce any digital slr.  And then there's the costs difference $300 for a medium format film slr, or $30,000 for a medium format digital slr with less performance.



What about 10x12 ? not sure it up it yet


----------



## Garbz (Dec 30, 2009)

Dwig said:


> Care was taken to get very similar color, contrast, and brightness. The bottom line was that there was no real difference.



Really because the show itself came to the exact opposite conclusion. While the difference in terms of resolution is negligible there was much said about how very linear and natural the colour reproduction the digital print was. 

Sure one of the things we love about film is it's non-linearity, especially when you blow the highlights of negatives,  but there was most definitely a plainly visible difference between the two prints.


----------



## the Virginian (Dec 31, 2009)

Mitica100 said:


> I remember shooting Tech Pan, from a 35mm frame one could make an enlargement equaling (same size photo) of a 4x5 negative.


I read an article that said because Tech Pan had better resolution capability than any commercially available lens that it was used to test lenses. It was also claimed to be capable of up to 11X14 prints. When I used it I found that 11X14 was the size needed just to match print papers' resolving power to the film's. Smaller print sizes compressed detail that could be seen in the neg with a loupe. A sweet film indeed.


----------

