# 35mm Film: 174 megapixels!



## epp_b (Dec 16, 2008)

I'm sure some of you have read KR's most recent update already, but here it is: 
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

So, with the best lens on a camera in the hands of the best photographer, scanned using the best equipment, Fuji Velvia 50 35mm slide film can give you the equivalent of a 174 megapixels from a digital camera that uses Bayer Interpolation (which, as far as I'm aware, is all of them), or 87 actual (clear) megapixels.

Interesting.  And, yay, another excuse to shoot film! 

Let the flame wars begin!


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 16, 2008)

KR  :thumbdown:


----------



## christopher walrath (Dec 16, 2008)

There are are roughly 40 billion silver halide crystals in the average 35mm negative area (36mm x 24mm) of emulsion.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 16, 2008)

That may be, but I said slide, not negative.


----------



## compur (Dec 16, 2008)

When you see a great photo, does it matter how many little dots it has?


----------



## epp_b (Dec 16, 2008)

Not unless it's dimensions are measured in feet.  I just thought it was interesting because I'm a nerd, so I'll leave it at that


----------



## frXnz kafka (Dec 16, 2008)

christopher walrath said:


> There are are roughly 40 billion silver halide crystals in the average 35mm negative area (36mm x 24mm) of emulsion.


40,000 megacrystals?


----------



## djacobox372 (Dec 16, 2008)

Whatever.... nobody is going to convince me that ANY 35mm film does any better then 12mp.  It may look better, and have more dynamic range, but digital resolution has surpassed film resolution for the same surface area.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 16, 2008)

I know this information is buried in a thread somewhere, but I didn't want to spend 2 hours searching for it...

How do you calculate megapixels?  Say an image is 4200x2700 pixels (14x9 @ 300 ppi), how many megapixels is that?  Is it simply multiplying the two dimensions?
(4200*2700=11340000=11.34mp?)

edit
got it.  I googled it and Ken Rockwell was the first result, lol.  I was doing it right.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 16, 2008)

If what Mr Rockwell is saying is true, then what the heck is going on here?

Why does the Nikon D700 noticeably outperform the Nikon F5 with the same lens?


----------



## frXnz kafka (Dec 16, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> Why does the Nikon D700 noticeably outperform the Nikon F5 with the same lens?


Because KR isn't comparing resolving power of digital sensors to film. He's comparing the "data recording" ability of a pixel to that of a crystal. And he's not even doing it very scientifically.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 16, 2008)

Well, I can respect his tastes, but if he's going to promote an agenda based on fuzzy logic, I don't know if I can respect his statements.



frXnz kafka said:


> Because KR isn't comparing resolving power of digital sensors to film. He's comparing the "data recording" ability of a pixel to that of a crystal. And he's not even doing it very scientifically.


So if he isn't comparing the quality of the end result, then what's his point? I bet silver crystals are more soluble in water than megapixels are, but that's irrelevant to the photograph, now isn't it.


----------



## frXnz kafka (Dec 16, 2008)

Dubious Drewski said:


> Well, I can respect his tastes, but if he's going to promote an agenda based on fuzzy logic, I don't know if I can respect his statements.
> 
> 
> So if he isn't comparing the quality of the end result, then what's his point? I bet silver crystals are more soluble in water than megapixels are, but that's irrelevant to the photograph, now isn't it.


This is why most people *don't* respect the guy. He's just trying to 'prove' that film is better, and is going on the assumption that has followers will eat it up just because it makes _some_ sense mathematically.

Just out of curiosity though, what are you guys using for fixer on the new Canon sensors? My old Sprint doesn't seem to be working.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 16, 2008)

> If what Mr Rockwell is saying is true, then what the heck is going on here?


What's going on there is unscientific BS done for advertising and ratings and for unartistic nerds to jizz all over.

The guy does have an engineering degree, so you've got to give him some credit when he talks about very technical things.


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 16, 2008)

epp_b said:


> What's going on there is unscientific BS done for advertising and ratings and for unartistic nerds to jizz all over.


Sure. I completely agree with that.  But then please tell me how their particular comparison in the video was invalid or irrelevant.  What did they do wrong that makes you disregard the end result you saw?  I mean, the two 75 meter posters were there, side by side for us to see.  It was pretty clear.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 16, 2008)

^ Read my response in the thread you linked to.


----------



## alexkerhead (Dec 17, 2008)

compur said:


> When you see a great photo, does it matter how many little dots it has?


I second this!


----------



## Dubious Drewski (Dec 17, 2008)

epp_b said:


> ^ Read my response in the thread you linked to.




^ and read My response to that.


----------



## jlykins (Dec 17, 2008)

Besides pixel count, I think the colors, and transition between them is better. This may just be my opinion though. I love (and shoot) them both, so I can't hate on either.


----------



## Steph (Dec 17, 2008)

epp_b said:


> the equivalent of a 174 megapixels from a digital camera that uses Bayer Interpolation (*which, as far as I'm aware, is all of them*)



No. Sigma does not use a Bayer pattern.


----------



## Steph (Dec 17, 2008)

A 35mm Velvia slide as the same resolution as a 6MP camera (Click). Oh no, wait, it has the resolution of a 22MP camera (Click). Oh no wait, wait, we got the calculations wrong, it is actually 174MP (Click)... and I am sure the list goes on if you do a quick Google search. My conclusion: who cares about these pseudo-scientific calculations?


----------



## terri (Dec 17, 2008)

> My conclusion: who cares about these pseudo-scientific calculations?


:hail:


----------



## jlykins (Dec 17, 2008)

Steph said:


> A 35mm Velvia slide as the same resolution as a 6MP camera (Click). Oh no, wait, it has the resolution of a 22MP camera (Click). Oh no wait, wait, we got the calculations wrong, it is actually 174MP (Click)... and I am sure the list goes on if you do a quick Google search. My conclusion: who cares about these pseudo-scientific calculations?


 
Exactly how I feel.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 17, 2008)

> No. Sigma does not use a Bayer pattern.


Read on into the article...



> Digital cameras never resolve their rated resolution. The only digital cameras that used to were those with Foveon sensors, but them Sigma started lying, too.


----------



## Steph (Dec 17, 2008)

epp_b said:


> Read on into the article...



So what? In your previous post you said you were not aware of sensors that did not use a Bayer pattern. The Foveon from Sigma does not and I just pointed out that an alternative to the Bayer pattern existed.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 17, 2008)

My bad, except for that one.


----------



## skieur (Dec 17, 2008)

compur said:


> When you see a great photo, does it matter how many little dots it has?


 
If you can see the dots, it has too few.  If you can't see the dots, then it does not matter.

skieur


----------



## pm63 (Dec 17, 2008)

Jesus, when I was first getting into photography I thought his site was the most useful thing on the planet, with its down-to-earth, real advice about the things that matter. The more I learn about photography, the more I detest him.

"The Nikon D40 is the best camera you can buy"

"The Nikon D3 is the best camera you can buy"

"Digital is rubbish, obsolescence that will be worth nothing in a years' time... Oh, just ignore the fact that I own almost the ENTIRE CURRENT Nikon digital system and some of Canon's, too!"

"Film rules, 4x5 is the way to go"



> When laypeople compare film to digital, they aren't comparing film to digital. They are usually only comparing scans of film to digital.



^ That really amused me. It is practically  REQUIREMENT for any shot film to be scanned to be worked on digitally nowadays anyway, so one way or another you end up with digital files. So to compare scans of film to digital is the natural thing to do. Now, wait a second, to get a 6MP scan of a 35mm roll of film that I might as well have shot on my D40, I need to splash out £20, and if I were to buy a good scanner it would cost thousands. To REALLY take advantage of the resolution film can offer, I'm looking at £50-100 _per exposure_ for drum scanning. Can you imagine how much lovley, brand new digital equipment I could have gotten for the price I paid to scan, say, as little as ten exposures from film at this price?

Don't get me wrong, I love the look and dynamic range of the slow films my favourite landscapers use, and some day, I hope to be able to afford it. I just hate the way Ken Rockwell is trying to imply that film is the way to go even for consumers. First he does his Megapixel Myth article where he says they don't matter, THEN he goes on to write an article arguing for film because of its pixel count? WTF?

Oh, and another contradiction. He claims to have been a part of the "worldwide D3X boycott". A few days later... And he reports he himself has ordered one :lmao: His excuse? To show US how it performs... I guess some of us just can't restrain our G.A.S.


----------



## dylj (Dec 17, 2008)

Well, now we all know the truth. Any old 35mm camera will outperform Hasselblad's new 50mp monster. Silly professionals.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 17, 2008)

Now my fil experience is limited, but i'll chime in what I know. 

Shooting negative film, no way does it outresolve 12+ MP DSLR's. I wouldn't even think of printing 20x30 off of 35mm Tmax. The higher the ISO's, the wider the gap. 

Slide film, I'm not sure. most of the slide film i've shot is on 4x5, and i've never had it printed or scanned, same goes for the 35mm slide i've shot, none of my shots were good enough to print.


I will say this though, I got 20 someodd rolls of free film the other week. Granted, it's expired, but I shot two rolls the other day just for kicks instead of my digital camera and I tell you what, The 1 hour snapshots sure have alot more character then the "sterility" of a D700. The anticipation to see how they turned out and the look of cheap Kodak Max and the C-41 B&W is just beutiful in it's own way. If I had shot digital, we would have looked at them on the LCD, and thought meh, should have done this, or _while _we were taking shapshots, tried to redo some things. With film, what you shoot is what you get, you don't know if it's good or bad until it's developed. You don't have to think so much and in a different way, enjoy what's going on more.


----------



## compur (Dec 17, 2008)

skieur said:


> If you can see the dots, it has too few.  If you can't see the dots, then it does not matter.
> 
> skieur



Your viewpoint, maybe, but not mine. I don't care how many dots it has
regardless of whether or not I can see them.

There are plenty of "dot-free" photos that are terrible and plenty of great
photos with "dots."

If dots or no-dots is what you think photography is all about, you are
entitled to your opinion but it's not a universally held belief.


----------



## skieur (Dec 17, 2008)

compur said:


> Your viewpoint, maybe, but not mine. I don't care how many dots it has
> regardless of whether or not I can see them.
> 
> There are plenty of "dot-free" photos that are terrible and plenty of great
> ...


 
Actually, it is generally held that photo quality is 300 dots per inch.  Anything less and the image is not viewed as a photo.  Blends for example are seen as individual colours, skin colours are blotchy.  It looks like a multiple copied, edited, and blown up jpeg from a 2 gig cel phone.

skieur


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 17, 2008)

If you digitally print none of this matters.  This side of freakin' huge that is.

The question I would like answered is how many DPI do you get when you print from an enlarger the old fashioned way?

Bet it blows 300DPI all to hell and gone.  

And yes, if you want to pour over a really nice landscape it does matter.


----------



## compur (Dec 18, 2008)

skieur said:


> Actually, it is generally held that photo quality is 300 dots per inch.  Anything less and the image is not viewed as a photo.  Blends for example are seen as individual colours, skin colours are blotchy.  It looks like a multiple copied, edited, and blown up jpeg from a 2 gig cel phone.
> 
> skieur



That's fine.  There are still plenty of "dot-less" photos that are terrible and
great photos with plenty of "dots."

It's all a matter of taste.


----------



## christopher walrath (Dec 18, 2008)

Alright.  If you shoot film, be it negative or reversal, then shoot film.  If you shoot digital, then shoot digital.  Whatever works for you.  Being a photographer is not in the tools (of course you can't make a photograph if your using paper and charcoal).  Being a photographer is in the vision, the artistry.  The tools are merely personal preferencial means to an end, the photograph.


----------



## monkeykoder (Dec 18, 2008)

pm63 said:


> It is practically  REQUIREMENT for any shot film to be scanned to be worked on digitally nowadays anyway, so one way or another you end up with digital files. So to compare scans of film to digital is the natural thing to do. Now, wait a second, to get a 6MP scan of a 35mm roll of film that I might as well have shot on my D40, I need to splash out £20, and if I were to buy a good scanner it would cost thousands. To REALLY take advantage of the resolution film can offer, I'm looking at £50-100 _per exposure_ for drum scanning. Can you imagine how much lovley, brand new digital equipment I could have gotten for the price I paid to scan, say, as little as ten exposures from film at this price?



Who the HELL would want to work on film digitally???  Do they WANT to lose all the richness of film to the mere digital files?  Take a picture right in the first place and OPTICALLY enlarge now you have a gorgeous print.  If you're doing commercial photography I say shoot digital there is no match for digital in this arena.  Outside of commercial photography choose the medium that fits the image you want to capture.


----------



## panocho (Dec 18, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> Who the HELL would want to work on film digitally???  Do they WANT to lose all the richness of film to the mere digital files?  Take a picture right in the first place and OPTICALLY enlarge now you have a gorgeous print.



Right. And that was precisely another tricky point of the so-called test: shooting was film vs digital -but then both were treated digitally.


----------



## epp_b (Dec 18, 2008)

> Who the HELL would want to work on film digitally???


Me, for one, because I don't have a darkroom and all sorts of equipment for working with film, but I already have a computer and a scanner for work purposes, so working with it digitally is a whole lot easier for me and probably does everything I'll ever need.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Dec 18, 2008)

monkeykoder said:


> Who the HELL would want to work on film digitally???--


it's not a mater of wanting too it&#8217;s a mater of needing too, look around your town, anytown or the whole US, I would bet you that for every one full service pro grade tradition lab there are 50 digital pro grade lab


----------



## stsinner (Dec 18, 2008)

Why the hell would anyone still shoot film unless they just like having a pain in their ass?  You can't appreciate anything over 5 MP unless you're in the business of making posters, so why would any one put up with the crappy pain of developing film?


----------



## ksmattfish (Dec 18, 2008)

Flame on!



Dubious Drewski said:


> Well, I can respect his tastes, but if he's going to promote an agenda based on fuzzy logic, I don't know if I can respect his statements.



His articles are written to create traffic at his website.  Film vs. digital does that pretty well.  Check out his 5D mkII review.  In the same article he says digital is better than film and film is better than digital.

As I've said before, I'll take on anyone's 174mp scan from 35mm vs my 12mp 5d.  We'll ask random people off the street which 20"x30" print looks cleaner, sharper, and shows more fine detail.  Personally, I think 35mm sucks at 16"x20" which is why I gave up on it years before I went digital.

Edit:  Or I'll take on anyone's 20"x30" optical print (no digital technology used at all).  That's what I did my comparisons against.


----------



## skieur (Dec 18, 2008)

compur said:


> That's fine. There are still plenty of "dot-less" photos that are terrible and
> great photos with plenty of "dots."
> 
> It's all a matter of taste.


 
Ah, the printing process for any photo is based on dots, so a "dot-less" photo in print form...not possible!

skieur


----------



## epp_b (Dec 18, 2008)

> Why the hell would anyone still shoot film unless they just like having a pain in their ass? You can't appreciate anything over 5 MP unless you're in the business of making posters, so why would any one put up with the crappy pain of developing film?


'Cause it's a good kind of hurt? 

I shoot both digital and film, and they're both fun in their own way.  Film has a look (partly due to the fact that it's film and also due to the frame size over crop DSLRs) that you can't achieve with digital.

BTW, when did this become a film vs. digital thread?  I just posted KR's comments as a point of discussion.


----------



## selmerdave (Dec 18, 2008)

skieur said:


> Ah, the printing process for any photo is based on dots, so a "dot-less" photo in print form...not possible!
> 
> skieur



Geeez how lame can you be.  Obviously he put dot-less in quotes ("dot-less") in reference to *YOUR* post about whether or not you could see the dots.

And just to be a dumbass, the printing process for any photo is not based on dots.  Only digital printing uses dots, optical printing is not based on dots.

Dave


----------



## compur (Dec 18, 2008)

skieur said:


> Ah, the printing process for any photo is based on dots, so a "dot-less" photo in print form...not possible!
> 
> skieur



I think now you're just being argumentative.

Film and digital are different mediums.  There is no point in arguing which is
better.  Use whichever you want.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Dec 19, 2008)

stsinner said:


> Why the hell would anyone still shoot film unless they just like having a pain in their ass?  You can't appreciate anything over 5 MP unless you're in the business of making posters, so why would any one put up with the crappy pain of developing film?



In the two, almost three years that i've been actively part of this forum, that is easily the most ignorant statement I have ever read on here.


----------



## panocho (Dec 19, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> In the two, almost three years that i've been actively part of this forum, that is easily the most ignorant statement I have ever read on here.



:thumbup:


----------



## compur (Dec 19, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> In the two, almost three years that i've been actively part of this forum, that is easily the most ignorant statement I have ever read on here.



:thumbup: :thumbup:


----------

