WRONG, he is asking for grain size.. not resolution!
OP original question....
[B]OK, what I'm getting at is "is there any documentation of the size of film grain of a particular film?" I know film grains between films of the same iso ratings wont be exactly the same size , but shouldnt there be a document saying "Ilford FP4+ film is X size" and "Kodak TMZ is Y size"? I'm horrible at google searching, so I've probably looked right over the thing I'm looking for without even realizing it...
BTW, I'm not trying to start a film VS digital debate. Those things actually piss the hell out of me (kinda like the rival sports team crap I have to deal with all the time in Lawrence county, Alabama). I'm looking for real technical info on film grain size. I can figure out pixel size for a particular digicam myself or find it in a more appropriate place.[/B]
Anyone can make a Digital print, but only a photographer can make a photograph.
What's the point when both grain SHAPE AND SIZE is not regular or even in the same plane?
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
Learn to read. Go back and read the OP.
Originally Posted by paul ron
He wants to know equivalent resolution.
I quoted the original question below my answer.... did you read it?
Once again for you reading imapared... The origianl quoted question by the OP....
OK, what I'm getting at is "is there any documentation of the size of film grain of a particular film?" I know film grains between films of the same iso ratings wont be exactly the same size , but shouldnt there be a document saying "Ilford FP4+ film is X size" and "Kodak TMZ is Y size"? I'm horrible at google searching, so I've probably looked right over the thing I'm looking for without even realizing it...
BTW, I'm not trying to start a film VS digital debate. Those things actually piss the hell out of me (kinda like the rival sports team crap I have to deal with all the time in Lawrence county, Alabama). I'm looking for real technical info on film grain size. I can figure out pixel size for a particular digicam myself or find it in a more appropriate place.[
Anyone can make a Digital print, but only a photographer can make a photograph.
You still haven't actually read the OP. Or even the part what you have quoted, and have conveniently left out much of the OP.
For the reading impaired (you, paul ron), I have quoted the pertinent parts you seem to be willingly ignoring.
He want's know to the equivalent resolution, his idea is to compare grain size as resolution vs pixel size, except it doesn't work like that, the people that are capable of comprehending English and not barging in and insulting all the other people that have replied in this thread (after seemingly having replied to someone above) have been able to comprehend English and also know that grain size isn't equivalent to pixel size in a resolution argument, which is what the OP want's to know.
One thing I wish I could argue is the resolution argument.
I guess I could make a comparison of the 'possible resolution' of a film vs a digital sensor. I know the camera lens, enlarging lens, tripod stability, and such affect resolution, but at least I'd be able to give an answer to the inevitable question "is film better than digital?" with terms of resolution.
At least I'd be able to compare film resolution to digital resolution in a way most people can understand
Last edited by Athiril; 02-16-2012 at 04:40 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I like this article as a simple comparison:
The Ektar seem to outresolve the 5D Mk. II on the "North Face" badge. This 35mm film, so obviously 6x6 is going to be very dramatically better.
Zeiss published an article titled "Resolving power of photographic films" in Camera Lens News volume 19 (March 2003).
It gives the measured resolving power in line pairs per mm of 13 films. Resolving power is more relevant to the intent behind the original question, since grains are not pixels and grain size does not determine image resolution.
The Zeiss article states that T-Max 100 resolves 180 lp/mm. For a digicam to resolve a line pair requires two pixels, one for the dark line and one for the light line. So 180 lp/mm is equivalent to 360 pixels per mm. On a 56 x 56 mm (medium format 6x6) negative, this would be about 406 MP.
However there is a caveat that with a digicam that uses Bayer filtration the image resolution is only at best about half the sensor resolution, in megapixels. This is because the sensor does not capture separate R, G and B values at each sensor pixel, but rather interpolates values from adjacent pixels in the demosaicing algorithm. So to a digicam with 406 MP image resolution would require at least 812 MP sensor resolution. Of course T-Max is B&W; for a fairer comparison, Velvia gives 160 lp/mm in colour which on a 56 x 56 mm negative is equivalent to a 640 MP Bayer sensor.
Of course in reality this figure will not be reached due to other limitations on the resolution of the system including subject contrast, lens resolution, diffraction, etc.
Last edited by andrew.roos; 02-16-2012 at 06:18 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I will say it again.
Originally Posted by thegman
Seriously when looking at this comparison, is it resolution that wins your attention?
Am I the only one who couldnt care less about that compared to the blown highlights?
Do you all print posters for covering buildings?
Shooting regularily 5dm2 and 1v with the same glass, it's rather obvious that resolution is absolutely not the reason to shoot film (of the same size). MF film is more comparable to FF digital, but still, there are many reasons to shoot film, resolution is just not one of them. (Even compared to large format, I can just stitch 50 20mpixel photos into a 500 mpixel one and print wall sized with no effort.)
When asked why I shoot film I say that I like the tones which are hard (for me) to reproduce in digital, the grain, smoothness of rendering, larger dynamic range, the whole process which makes every photograph more valuable in my eyes. There is no reason to shoot film if it doesn't motivate you and move you forward in my opinion. It is certainly not cheaper.
The article you are referring to is http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/CLN_19_en/$File/CLN19_en.pdf
That isn't quite right. Their test target will be high contrast, it is testing high contrast resolution. Not low contrast (where the high spatial frequency detail is that you actually want to see) such as texture of skin or tree bark, foliage in a distant landscape etc. Not how sharp your silhouette tree outline edges are against a bright white sky (still no high spatial frequencies there).
They didn't reveal the test target.
CLN issues, we will also publish more
detailed information on the test target
If you want to go through future issues and find out what they used that'd be good.
Also take any dSLR image with a sharp lens, reduce it to 50% then blow it back up and compare to the original, you will see significant detail loss. Regardless, a line chart here is what can help determine maximum sensor resolution.
The other fact is, that getting this level of information off your film is going to be tricky unless you are a great printer with a great lens, most people will be scanning, so will be limited to 25-30 lp/mm (of real detail) from flatbeds, 80 lp/mm maximum at high contrast from coolscans, 125 lp/mm maximum at high contrast (Hasselblad X5) from 35mm only, MF is lower than a coolscan, about 60 lp/mm or less, plus they are disgustingly bad for colour neg from last time I had something done on one.
Printing colour at such great detail.. not many people traditionally print colour, even less compared to the film users doing b&w printing.
How are you going to get that detail off your Velvia? Ilfochrome is prohibitively expensive.
I mean for the super large print you need done for 35mm off a pristine slide (or neg) there is the drum scanning option at a few hundred for the one scan, though if you're printing that size, it's probably for a show or sale etc so has some justification.
But the point is, it's one thing to say this resolves X, but I think that's not much of a comparable figure to digital at all. (which is what the OP is after) as that detail is staying on the film strip.
Eg; lp/mm on the neg only compared to lp/mm from digital on the computer.. not comparable. Lp/mm from a print or lp/mm from a scan, comparable.
Originally Posted by pekelnik
The detail is on the film, and can exceed your 5DII by some way, depending on the variables. But it's your workflow losing all the detail, and not the film "disappointing" you etc.
Last edited by Athiril; 02-16-2012 at 07:39 AM. Click to view previous post history.