Jump to content

Photography question.


Bud

Recommended Posts

I've never seen discussed the relationship between 35mm film capacity in relationship to a digital camera MP capacity.

 

I have a camera that has a 16.1 MP sensor. I'm thinking that the amount of resolution is limited by that. The smallest bit of information that could be collected.

 

Compare that to a camera with the same lens, using 35mm film. Would the film be able to capture smaller items because it has greater resolution?

 

Hope I am making myself clear and someone here can give me an informed answer.

 

Thanks in advance. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Danny caddyshack Noonan

The film limitation might be defined by the silver particle size.....whatever that is, and how it ratios to the area of the frame.

Link to comment
Bud,

35mm film doesn't have a resolution? Or I suppose you could call it infinite.

 

I don't believe that is correct. Check this out. It refers to "Film resolution is directly related to the size and distribution of

silver particles in an emulsion. " The particles are not infinite in size.

 

http://vitaleartconservation.com/PDF/film_grain_resolution_and_perception_v24.pdf

 

And while I was typing my response, Peter posted his reply.

Link to comment
Gotcha. You are referring to the limiting factor of the film?

 

I think that's what I wanted to know.

 

But the question I wanted to know is: Given a 35 MM film that would record the largest amount of information, what would that equal in megapixels?

Link to comment

But the question I wanted to know is: Given a 35 MM film that would record the largest amount of information, what would that equal in megapixels?

 

According to the study above, film grain resolution is in the 10-30 micron range, or say 2000 ppi, give or take. Wikipedia says 35mm film is 36mmx24mm or 1.41in x 0.94in. X2000 ppi is 5.3 megapixels. Check my math. :thumbsup:

Link to comment

Check you math????? Heck, I couldn't even figure that all out. I will take your answer unless others have reasons to object.

 

Thanks. :clap::wave::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Link to comment

I think that calculation of film resolution is about right. My understanding is that typical lens resolution for a dSLR is less than current sensor resolution. I am more attuned to image quality. I have made some very nice large prints from images cropped to 1-2 megapixels when the image quality is right.

 

Right now the biggest differentiating criteria in camera bodies, IMHO, are sensor dynamic range (the newer ones are getting pretty impressive), noise control (particularly at higher iso's) and sensitivity (iso range).

 

 

Link to comment

Thanks Jan. While mucking around the interwebby thingy, I found this:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1070610-REG/hasselblad_cfv_50_digital_back_50mp_black.html

 

I would assume that it fits your description of:

 

Right now the biggest differentiating criteria in camera bodies, IMHO, are sensor dynamic range (the newer ones are getting pretty impressive), noise control (particularly at higher iso's) and sensitivity (iso range).

Link to comment

 

Film is an analogue medium, so if you are considering line resolution it is about 1/3 of the surface "megapixel content" of the emulsion. Limiting the discussion to the common dSLR (APS-C size) sensor then those sensors had better pure resolution then ISO 800 film when they reached about 3.5 megapixels. But those sensors may have had more noise and they had far less dynamic range and less color range then the film. Once the APS-C sensor got to 16-20 megapixels at a DR of 10-12 stops they were at close to the technical reach of the "best" 35mm films (example Kodachrome 25/64) and much better pure line resolution. But film is still better at the bright end (less highlight clipping) and may have more color range. Film even has far more information (in pure grains), but the analogue nature and layers involved in the emulsion fight against the resolution.

 

Anyone tried looking at their old Kodachrome slides or producing new prints from negatives over 20 years old? Time isn't generally kind to the colors or details :(

 

Mike Cassidy

 

Link to comment

Any response to your questions would have to first consider the question of film speed. All else being equal, lower speed film would equate to greater megapixel quality. Moreover, transparency (slide) film of a given speed would yield sharper, more detailed images than negative film of the same speed.

 

 

 

I haven't read all the responses (although I skimmed them) so if I'm redundant, I apologize.

Link to comment

Within every CMOS digital sensor is a analog circuit. However, that circuit behaves much different than film. With advancements in sensor technology and with the signal processing that gets done on modern DSLRs, the dynamic ranges are quite amazing. Then with post processing . . .. wow.

 

However, I can pull out a 35 year old negative and get a picture out of it. Will my digital pictures be around in 35 years and will I be able to find it amongst the thousands of digital pictures I take each year?

Link to comment

 

Anyone tried looking at their old Kodachrome slides or producing new prints from negatives over 20 years old? Time isn't generally kind to the colors or details :(

 

Mike Cassidy

Yes. I saved some family slides from the 40s, 50s, and 60s that were about to be thrown out by a family member. I was amazed at the colors. I had them scanned by kodak for about a buck a piece and saved to disc.

 

Here is a copy and paste from wiki about kodachrome:

Archival stability[edit]

When stored in darkness, Kodachrome's long-term stability under suitable conditions is superior to other types of color film. Images on Kodachrome slides over fifty years old retain accurate color and density. It has been calculated that the yellow dye, the least stable, would suffer a 20% loss of dye in 185 years.[23] This is because developed Kodachrome does not retain unused color couplers. However, Kodachrome's color stability under bright light, for example during projection, is inferior to substantive slide films. Kodachrome's fade time under projection is about one hour, compared to Fujichrome's two and a half hours.[24]

 

Unprocessed Kodachrome film may survive long periods between exposure and processing. In one case, several rolls were exposed and then lost in a Canadian forest. Upon discovery 19 years later they were processed and the slides were usable.[25]

 

 

Link to comment

Anyone tried looking at their old Kodachrome slides or producing new prints from negatives over 20 years old? Time isn't generally kind to the colors or details :(

 

Mike Cassidy

Yes. I saved some family slides from the 40s, 50s, and 60s that were about to be thrown out by a family member. I was amazed at the colors. I had them scanned by kodak for about a buck a piece and saved to disc.

 

I will admit that film does have an incredible archival time, and have made a few prints from my dad's old B&W negatives from both a portable folding camera (?Kodak pocket model) and an old Kodak Brownie. But the limitations of the format (probably more the camera) produces a picture barely better then a 0.5 MP phone camera.

 

My disappointment has been when looking at slides taken with my old SLR (Olympus OM-1) and going through old slides of my parent's post-retirement travels from the 1970's. It probably doesn't help that I'm using an old slide projector and old screen. Or maybe my focus wasn't as good as I remember. I tried digitalizing some of those slides about 10 years ago and ran into a color-cast problem with archiving Kodachrome slides. I think they have automated the process for Kodachrome now and it is a lot better. But I look at my first digital photos taken with a 2 mp camera around 2001 either projected (even at 1024x768) or on my new 3k screen and the definition is striking by comparison to those old slides.

 

Time to try the new film/slide scanners or a commercial service again.

 

Mike Cassidy

Link to comment

The slides from the 60s didn't age as well as the earlier ones, and I recall hearing or reading that Kodachrome and it's developing process was so toxic that they made changes to a more friendly chemical combo but the life expectancy of the film was shortened as a result, IIRC.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...