Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,897   Posts: 1,584,337   Online: 797
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 46
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    21
    Images
    5
    I believe 'mega pixel' is an insufficient measure to measure resolution, as it all depends on e.g. the physical size of each pixel, how big the sensor chips is, and how the pixels are distributed on the chip area. For the same reason, I argue that the size of a grain is an incomplete measure of a films resolution. There is no way to calculate a MP-equivalent for a particular film, without having to introduce a lot of boundary conditions.
    If one need to argue about the resolution of chips compared to films, I believe the best approach is to compare MTF-curves.

  2. #12
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,834
    Images
    1
    ilm resolutions sre well documented, and they exceed sensor resolutions by far, but they are based onwell-lit high-contrst targets.in th beginning of the digital craze, it was said that a digital camera would need 60 mpixels to compete with film, but i don't know te details of that claim.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  3. #13
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,834
    Images
    1
    better thani always subjective,and you will always find the prsonwho says ;that depends...
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    156
    I have yet to understand why people think resolution is the most important thing. I know I am going slightly off topic but how can anyone care about resolution when the dynamic range and the colours are not as good.
    I dont care if I have a 16MP sensor when the highlights are blown.
    Also the resolution of film is irrelevant as the resolution of the scanner is what matters.

  5. #15
    tomalophicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Canberra, ACT.
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,562
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by stavrosk View Post
    I have yet to understand why people think resolution is the most important thing. I know I am going slightly off topic but how can anyone care about resolution when the dynamic range and the colours are not as good.
    I dont care if I have a 16MP sensor when the highlights are blown.
    Also the resolution of film is irrelevant as the resolution of the scanner is what matters.
    You mean the paper, right?

  6. #16
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Existing Light View Post
    I know. But they should be similar enough in terms of resolution that I can make a reasonable analogy like "your Nikon Dwhateves has W pixels, which means they're X big in measurement while the grains of PlusX are Y big in measurement, which means there's about Z grains in a 35mm negative." That wont be a perfect example because grains arent in a flat grid but suspended in an emulsion, but comparing pixel size to grain size should give a reasonable comparison.

    That can at least be as objective of an answer as you can give one of those people that want to know about film vs digital in reguards to resolution. I think it beats "I like film better because it's got a look that digital cant replicate." I mean, I believe that's true, but it's still subjective.

    I feel this thread disentegrating very soon :\
    Well the whole point is that they are not the same. They are not apples and apples - which is why a desire to objectify them into the same thing will ultimately fail, except for the most simplistic and vague of comparisons.

    And it is for that same fundamental difference in mediums that we continue to use this analog medium.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,188
    Resolution has noting to do with the actual size of a grain in film. Resolution is a reference to detail, how much information there is in an image, sharpness; such as line tests used for testing lenses' resolving power.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution

    So without all the fluff does anyone actually know how big a grain is?

    .
    Anyone can make a Digital print, but only a photographer can make a photograph.

  8. #18
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,663
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by henpe View Post
    When making comparisons with sensor chips, one should also take into account the Bayer-filter and the fact that a pixel is not sensitive to all three RGB-primaries. On a x-megaPixel camera, little more than a third of the pixels are green sensitive, little less than one third is blue and red sensitive, respectively. The full-color x-megaPixel image is generated through interpolation. The effective resolution is thus less than x mega pixel. Also, If I have understood things correctly, the MTF of a sensor chip has a much more steep cut-off, while a film degrades more gracefully beyond the MTF cut-off. This, I think, influence how the media respond to (too-)fine details.

    Demosaicing works, it's not so much interpolation as one might think, it's interpolation for colour. High resolution, eg high spatial frequencies in the real world occur mostly over lumninance and not chroma, it has full or close to full luma resolution, though demosaic'ed chroma still does a lot better than images that have been chroma sub-sampled (eg; even high end video, digitised motion picture).



    I like resolution, but line tests.. good for some things, like determining if your lens is a good copy, or what is going to satisfy you for your intended purpose. In any case film resolution is variable, most high spatial frequencies are going to occur over lower contrast, so low contrast resolution is what I find important, I don't bother with the high contrast res in making a determination of what I should be using for what if I do indeed need detail.

    If you're doing astrophotography with ridiculously good equipment, then film would be a good choice with it's high resolution over high contrast.


    Velvia 50 for example is 80 lp/mm over low contrast according to the data sheet.. however the numbers manufacturers state don't always seem to line up with the MTF charts published, where some films outperform others on the MTF but are rated lower than a film.

    Velvia 50 is then also 160 lp/mm for high contrast, T-Max 100 has 63 lp/mm for low, and 200 lp/mm for high.

    On the MTF charts, T-Max 100 looks like it hits 200 lp/mm @ 25-30% response, which 63 lp/mm looks like it's hitting 90%+

    Velvia 50 on the other hand looks like it hits 80 lp/mm @ 20%, and 200 lp/mm @ 7%. Though it is a high contrast film.



    Anyway the maximum information a 5DII size file can store is 78 lp/mm. So in theory you can best the 5DII with Velvia 50 in 35mm format (assuming everything is allowing you to... subject, lens, exposure, processing, etc) at the lowest of low contrast areas of the subject, and then proceed to grow in resolution the higher the contrast gets over high spatial frequencies.

    At maximum contrast, theoretically, you could get 4x the maximum theoretical information a 5DII could store with Velvia 50 in only 35mm.

    Practise is different and is all over the place of course.
    Last edited by Athiril; 02-16-2012 at 04:02 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,188
    blah blah blah...

    but how big is a single grain in B&W conventional film and T-Grain B&W film?

    I found an interesting paper on grain size for all you pontificators who love to dance fancy answers when you don't know what you are talking about....

    http://cool.conservation-us.org/cool...resolution.pdf
    Last edited by paul ron; 02-16-2012 at 04:01 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Anyone can make a Digital print, but only a photographer can make a photograph.

  10. #20
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,663
    Images
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by paul ron View Post
    blah blah blah...

    but how big is a single grain in B&W conventional film and T-Grain B&W film?

    I found an interesting paper on grain size for all you pontificators who love to dance fancy answers when you don't know what you are talking about....

    http://cool.conservation-us.org/cool...resolution.pdf

    blah blah blah.

    If you bothered to read the OP, you'd see what he really wants to know is equivalent resolution.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin