# So, I heard that film is about 16MP equilivant?



## prodigy2k7 (Jul 21, 2008)

What is the MP equilivant for film? Also how many dots per inch is on a piece of film?


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 21, 2008)

There are too many variables to directly compare a MP number to film.  I did read an article, a few years ago, where the magazine staff (Pop Photo, I think) did several tests to compare the Canon 1Ds (or maybe the mark II) to 35mm film (Kodak 100, I forget the specific type/name).  At that point, they concluded that the Canon was better, over all.

As for your other question...I don't know.  I don't think it's that easy.


----------



## compur (Jul 21, 2008)

This film claims it is equivalent to 500 MP.


----------



## elemental (Jul 21, 2008)

When you say "film," do you mean 35mm?

What determines the working digital resolution of scanned negatives is (at least for now) often the resolution of the scanner, if you want a literal translation from film into digital. Also remember that there are many different film formats- smaller negatives like 110 have the lowest resolution and are the least enlargement friendly, while many large format films with their humongous negatives are often said to crush even the 22mp full-frame DSLRs in resolution (I wouldn't know firsthand).


----------



## tasman (Jul 21, 2008)

I have heard that before too. 35mm film was the equivalent to 22 MP.


----------



## reg (Jul 22, 2008)

elemental said:


> while many large format films with their humongous negatives are often said to crush even the 22mp full-frame DSLRs in resolution (I wouldn't know firsthand).



They crush even the 50MP medium format DSLRs. Nothing will ever compare with 8x10 film, short of an 8x10 or _MAYBE _a 4x5 digital camera.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jul 30, 2008)

reg said:


> They crush even the 50MP medium format DSLRs. Nothing will ever compare with 8x10 film, short of an 8x10 or _MAYBE _a 4x5 digital camera.



Currently available 4cm x 5cm digital sensors have greater resolution and dynamic range than 4x5 inch C41.  Scanning backs that are significantly better than 8x10 film have been around for over 10 years, although they require very long exposures (10+ minutes) so they aren't practical in all situations.  Professional digital studio cameras that surpass 8x10 film image quality with normal exposure times will be introduced within the next 10 years.   

I agree with the above posts that there are a lot of variables that make it difficult to generalize comparisons of image quality between film and digital, but a large majority of serious enthusiasts and professional photographers, including myself, are of the opinion that most 8 mp APS DSLRs match or beat 35mm film at ISO 100, and once you get to ISO 400 and beyond there is little comparison.


----------



## nealjpage (Jul 30, 2008)

Holy crap!  Matt!  Where have you been, bud?


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jul 31, 2008)

Film and digital photography have different attitudes.  Chose which one services your needs. As far as MP I agree with Matt[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]


----------



## Alpha (Jul 31, 2008)

If you're a meticulous film shooter, and you shoot slow, I would ballpark the native resolution of film at about 3000DPI, or higher in certain circumstances. From there you can do the math according to negative size.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Jul 31, 2008)

So with film you can make a 100" long poster at 300 dpi?


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jul 31, 2008)

^^^
That is the viewing distant? 
  Will the grain show?
Will the film be scanned?
How will it be printed?


I have a few older 24x36&#8221; prints made from 35mm film, they look nice to me, yes a little grainy compare to today digital standards but still nice prints[FONT=&quot][/FONT]


----------



## MathTeacherGuy (Aug 1, 2008)

Hi, I've been scanning a ton of my old negatives lately.  Here is what I've found. 

For Kodak Gold 100 negative film, the maximum resolution that provides any slight improvement is 4800 DPI.  A 35mm negative is about 24mm x 36mm or about 1.4 square inches.  1.4 times 4800 squared or about 33 MegaPixel.  I think that figure is a stretch from the truth, though.  2400 DPI is more like the actual capability of the film; it just scans slightly better at a higher resolution.  2400 DPI translates to about 8 MP.

One little added complication is that 8 MP isn't always 8 MP.  The resolution of my 6 MP Canon S3 IS is lots better than that of most pocket point and shoots of the same resolution, but a 6 MP DSLR would kick my Canon's butt.  Roughly the same facts hold for film SLRs ... my little Olympus XA pocket camera is cute but there is no way that it can give comparable resolution to even my ancient Minolta SRT-100 SLR.

Right now I'm finishing scanning some 800 and 1600 rolls I took about 10 years ago.  The resolution of the 800 film (after 10 years of storage) is comparable to perhaps a 1 MP digital image from an early generation pocket digital camera like my Kodak DC-210 (may it rest in peace).  Edge details are indistinct and colors are washed out just as with the stone-age digital camera.

-MathTeacherGuy:er:


----------



## Helen B (Aug 1, 2008)

MathTeacherGuy said:


> Hi, I've been scanning a ton of my old negatives lately.  Here is what I've found.
> 
> For Kodak Gold 100 negative film, the maximum resolution that provides any slight improvement is 4800 DPI.  A 35mm negative is about 24mm x 36mm or about 1.4 square inches.  1.4 times 4800 squared or about 33 MegaPixel.  I think that figure is a stretch from the truth, though.  2400 DPI is more like the actual capability of the film; it just scans slightly better at a higher resolution.  2400 DPI translates to about 8 MP.
> 
> ...



Which scanner did you use for these tests? If you are using a scanner to assess the resolution of film, don't you need to make sure that it isn't the scanner that is limiting the resolution rather than the film?

Thanks,
Helen


----------



## Early (Aug 2, 2008)

Ten years ago, I scanned some Kodachrome 64 slides on an old low cost HP S20 that had a max 300 dpi output and got about 29 megabite tif files.  Today, using a 12 megapixel digital camera at max resolution, I get 30 megabite files.  This is for anyone who can do the math, but offhand, I'd say 12 megapixels aren't even close.


----------



## Bifurcator (Aug 2, 2008)

Early, TIFF can have huffman compression and I think another too.  Think WinZip inside the file format.  Was one compressed maybe?



compur said:


> This film claims it is equivalent to 500 MP.



Yeah. LOL! Pretty funny claim.

Did you take a look at their scan of it at what looks like about 20 MP?

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Pictures_files/page9_4.jpg

It's already come apart. To me that looks about the same as an enlarged (resized) image of about 8mp.  It might be their lens or focus I dunno but at that rez there's not a sharp edge in the frame except ultra high contrast street markings and a blow-up of a 4mp image will maintain that. The trees, buildings, grass, cars and most of the boats are toast at 20mp. If I gauge by that sample and the other samples there I guess the film has a max scan res of about 12mp before it starts getting soft and 20mp or so before everything but the high-contrast edges fall apart.  500mp huh?  Teeheehee... someone needs to sell some film I think. 

The 4000 dpi (about 20mp?) bicycle image on front looks better but still it seems obvious they're at the upper limits and parts of it look like it's been sharpened to me - I guess maybe by the scanner package? On top of that notice again that other than the ultra high contrast areas the image looks almost like a soft-focus lens was used.   Signs that it's being scanned above it's equivalent digital resolution.

Oh well, sales people huh?


----------



## christopher walrath (Aug 3, 2008)

You wanna be technical?  There are around 40BILLION silver halide crystals in a 35mm negative.  That's 40 billion microscopic pieces that can individually record the presence of a reflected photon.  I think I heard somewhere that a billion in digispeak was a gig.  So, technically speaking a 35mm negative would equivocate a 40 GP camera.

Wait for it . . . wait for it . . .

REALITY.  No, you're probably not gonna get better resolution from a TMX neg than you would from an image captured with an H3D.  4x5 film, that's a different story.

Film and digital will have comparable image quality up to a point.  Large Format negatives at extreme enlargements will blow anything electrical out of the water.


----------



## fabric (Aug 15, 2008)

the latent image exposed on a negative is only a few atoms of silver compound, otherwise the exposure would take hours not milliseconds. the development-phase amplifies this up into the millions, giving a visible image.

a general equivalence is 20-25 megapixels for 135 film, 50
for 120 film and 100mp+ for sheet film. that is assuming a 
tripod, pukka optics are used and mirror locked-up on an SLR.
.. and thats 20million 'good pixels', apparently. a handheld 
shot in a everyday situation is a lot less. (apparently).

we all have to pedantically keep reminding ourselves, "megapixels" is not such a useful way of considering image
resolution. size of sensor and optics are more pertinent.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Aug 15, 2008)

christopher walrath said:


> Film and digital will have comparable image quality up to a point.  Large Format negatives at extreme enlargements will blow anything electrical out of the water.



I would hope so! Electrical isn't supposed to be in water!


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 15, 2008)

A couple of articles from some serious photo geeks.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

You shoot with whatever 35mm film you want.  I'll shoot with a Canon 5D 12.8mp DSLR.  We'll make 20"x30" prints and hang them next to each other on the wall.  It won't even be close.


----------



## djacobox372 (Aug 22, 2008)

I shoot both film and digital, and I find that 10mp digital photos capture as much detail as the finest 35mm film... HOWEVER, film grain is a lot more pleasing to look at, so blowups of 35mm film look a bit better then 10mp digital even if there isn't any more detectable detail.

I think it's safe to say that 12mp = 35mm film


----------



## Helen B (Aug 22, 2008)

I wish that my 12 megapixel D3 was capable of recording as much detail as I can get from the best current 35 mm films, and that it had the same dynamic range.

Best,
Helen


----------



## djacobox372 (Aug 24, 2008)

Helen B said:


> I wish that my 12 megapixel D3 was capable of recording as much detail as I can get from the best current 35 mm films, and that it had the same dynamic range.
> 
> Best,
> Helen


 
100% agreement on the dynamic range issue, this is where film has it ALL over digital.

As for detail, my own observations along with every detailed comparison I've ever seen done has shown film to fall a bit short of 12mp digital.  If you know of a detailed article that proves the reverse please send it to me, I'm very curious.

thx


----------

