Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

film resolution (don't miss this one)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:48 pm    Post subject: film resolution (don't miss this one) Reply with quote
I read in various forum that 35mm negative resolution is 6-8mb
Here is a handheld shot with the cheap 2 euros negative from Lidl
push here for bigger view

Here is a crop equivalent to a dslr of 10Mpixels

Want more?
Here is a crop equivalent to a dslr of 40Mpixels

So what is film resolution?
Ok this one is with Hollywood, don't wait the same with common lens Wink


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Amazing enlargements!

I think that for film performance, taking a correct exposure at the moment of shooting, is a key factor.

WHen exposure was good (and development correct), sometimes enlargements from film can be amazing, like in your case esp. the last one.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great lens + decent low ISO film = high resolution.

It has always been like that. Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 35mm negative resolution is 16-18M pixels.

Last edited by Sandie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:37 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I think that for film performance, taking a correct exposure at the moment of shooting, is a key factor

The film have greater dynamic range than digital, the enlarged zone is in shadows and underexposed versus the whole scene
I try diverse lens this week-end and I directly see that Hollywood give incredible result
I think that new negative are better and offer the resolution of 10 years ago slide
Many use cheap flat scanner, they are not impressed by the results and claim that negative is only 6Mpixels
This one is scanned with 40D on bellows

Carsten wrote:
Great lens + decent low ISO film = high resolution

True, but I thought that this cheap film was not very good
Shooting with film camera is great
I can wait more months for the 5DII
At 0.08 euro the shot (2+1 for develop /36), it is not so expensive

Sandie wrote:
The 35mm negative resolution is 16-18mb

I also believed that, now I can see it


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with the school of thought that believes the only way to compare film and digital is with prints.
I did this many years ago and know many others at our photo club who have done all the practical tests. A 12 x 10 inch (Chemical) print BW or colour from 35mm will do the job.
If you wish to read some ‘Expert’ opinion based on comparing the finished results look at Luminous Landscape. The article is rather old but the conclusion can’t really go out of date.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml

I thought the silly digital vs film argument was over five plus years ago.
I’m sure many Canon 5D owners will be pleased to know some still believe a S/H £10 film camera can better their investment!
I’m not biased I still shoot film for fun. I have used 4 x 36 exposures in the past 3-4 weeks and have three film cameras with film in them at the moment. And I have just bought yet another SD card!


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hi poilu!!!
YOU wanna kill me Smile Shocked Very Happy

I am trying to be converted myself to film cameras and you've sent this! Smile

Thats a great example ! I love it !

Can you tell me more details? Exp, ISO etc..

thanks

tf


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nice presentation Poilu
Hard to deny what we see here.
Film is here (to stay or not) lets use it Wink


To me it is funny in a way to show this shot. It is plain to see that the film brings it home no question.
But it is also true that the 40D is the one delivering the message (neg shot with bellos and 40D Wink


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Trifox wrote:
Can you tell me more details? Exp, ISO etc..

HeHe! Film doesn't have exif Very Happy
the film is Fuji Z200 (200 iso)
It was 7pm so I set f5.6, the speed was low but I am not sure about it
This place is always crowed, I had to wait 15 sec to find a hole and got less than 1s to fire
Btw I was completely lost with the 28mm. To much time with the cropped where 45mm (28mm on crop) is my minimum.

I scan with bellows. It take me 9min by film, 15 sec by frame (time for positioning film, scan is 1/200s)
After I open all the pics in pp camera raw and apply my preset who invert the pic and correct color.
I check the frame who need exposure and WB correction
I correct by batch of same condition with 'synchronize'
I save images as small jpg for reference and keep the selected raw as negative
Then I exif the jpg with the lens as I forget fast
The equivalent to 10Mp is easy as it is all the frame with my 40D
For 40Mp, I scan a part of the neg then resample to get the double of the size at 10Mp who correspond to a dslr of 40

It is quite boring. I could pay 8 euros to get a cd but I don't like their noise reduction and pseudo colors

I have a polaroid slide scanner sprintscan+ but it would take a long time to pass a whole film and correcting colors is not easy.

Flat scanner is also a solution but they are very slow and not so precise

sunshine wrote:
But it is also true that the 40D is the one delivering the message (neg shot with bellos and 40D

Without the 40D, I would never got back to film Wink
The 9 min scan by film is what decide me, also liveview is important for precise focus and frame positioning


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Without the 40D, I would never got back to film Wink


Oh Yes of course. And that is great.
I just think it is funny and Ironic in this situation Wink


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sunshine wrote:
I just think it is funny and Ironic in this situation

Very Happy the same funny & ironic that using a >50year old lens on a dslr Wink


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laughing Sure Laughing

Like that Wink


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Poilu, did you remember what you had for dinner that day? Be sure to
include that in your info! Laughing

Stunning results! I feel like writing sonnets or sumptin...

I think using the 40D as a draft animal is key here.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would never guess that first one is film.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob Leslie wrote:

If you wish to read some ‘Expert’ opinion based on comparing the finished results look at Luminous Landscape. The article is rather old but the conclusion can’t really go out of date.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml


While I don't doubt the images in those example confirm the theory expressed still reading at the end:

Quote:
"Hi Michael, I've come across your article on the D30 versus film, I agree absolutely with all your conclusions, and I can add something. I own a drum scanner capable of 10,000 ppi and 4.6 D and also made tests with Provia 100F, scanning at 5000 ppi (the theoretical limit of film resolution). At that res the grain shows clearly so the D30 prints is vastly superior. The most approximated look to a D30 file is a 4x5 transparency drum scanned to match the size of a print from the D30+GF Pro (30x40 cm). So I too am impressed by the performance of the D30. It seems that all we used to know about photography no longer applies !!"


made me laugh for a good quarter hour. A 4x5 transparency... suuuuuuure... Laughing Maybe one impressed by a stenopeic camera Rolling Eyes

I concur that the digital versus film argument is basically silly, they're different medium with different applications.

If "no grain" is all I want from an image then digital is superior, if I want subtler tone transitions, milder upper and lower shoulders or just a credible B&W image, film is the way to go.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Rob Leslie wrote:

If you wish to read some ‘Expert’ opinion based on comparing the finished results look at Luminous Landscape. The article is rather old but the conclusion can’t really go out of date.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml


While I don't doubt the images in those example confirm the theory expressed still reading at the end:

Quote:
"Hi Michael, I've come across your article on the D30 versus film, I agree absolutely with all your conclusions, and I can add something. I own a drum scanner capable of 10,000 ppi and 4.6 D and also made tests with Provia 100F, scanning at 5000 ppi (the theoretical limit of film resolution). At that res the grain shows clearly so the D30 prints is vastly superior. The most approximated look to a D30 file is a 4x5 transparency drum scanned to match the size of a print from the D30+GF Pro (30x40 cm). So I too am impressed by the performance of the D30. It seems that all we used to know about photography no longer applies !!"


made me laugh for a good quarter hour. A 4x5 transparency... suuuuuuure... Laughing Maybe one impressed by a stenopeic camera Rolling Eyes

I concur that the digital versus film argument is basically silly, they're different medium with different applications.

If "no grain" is all I want from an image then digital is superior, if I want subtler tone transitions, milder upper and lower shoulders or just a credible B&W image, film is the way to go.


I agree a 4x5 can still give any DSLR a run for its money.
Back in the late 1980s we compared a drum scanned 35mm and 6x6 for high quality colour reproduction both shooting Extachrome and the difference was fantastic, 35mm was rejected.
I have a quote from the late Patrick Lichfield (Photoshop and the professional) saying before his studio went digital (2000) they never did advertising posters, but with digital no problem and no messing about with view cameras.
At the time he was talking about digital backs but things have moved on in the past 8 years and the DSLR has taken big leaps since the humble D30


PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Confronting the film and digital medium, with film scanned (with a prosumer scanner like Epson v700, an Imacon would give better results) to have the same "grainless" and "sharp" feeling of digital, I came out with these results:

35 mm film = 3-6 MP (a dedicated 35mm scanner would give you a lot better results)
6x9 folder with triplet lens = 8-10 MP
6x9 folder with tessar lens = 12-14 MP
6x6 with good lenses (CZJ x P6) = 24-30 MP

The ranges depend a lot on the quality of the film.

Since 4x5 inches is about 10x12 cm, almost 4 times a 6x6, I just guess that the one saying the Canon d30 is at that level did probably forgot to put his glasses on before talking.

About the poster thing, I really don't know, but I remember to have seen this shot in so many book covers, posters, etc

and it was taken on a 35mm Kodachrome 64 by Steve Mc Curry of NG.

Digital is very practical, I love it. But some stuff on the net is just plain disinformation (and probable hidden advertisements).


PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob wrote:
I’m sure many Canon 5D owners will be pleased to know some still believe a S/H £10 film camera can better their investment!

I shot the scene this morning with digital for the hard believer
Tokina 12-24 on 40D @ F11

resized to be compared with the film sample from previous page

It is a little wider because of the 95% of the viewfinder I used to frame
It is not the same light condition but I have other things to do
A sensor of 10Mp cannot show the text
You can enlarge as much you want, digital cannot recover missing details Wink


PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A lot of the potential of digital is lost by some people due to poor PP or shooting in JPEG. Every year we see new members join our local Photo Society and their only PP knowledge is adjustment of brightness and contrast, or a reliance on key stroke auto corrections, few have a good working knowledge of RAW conversion with most relying on the auto settings. Some even can't do a correct exposure!
IMO to get the best from digital requires more practice than darkroom printing, yet few seem to be willing to read a few books and go on a Adobe introduction course, or even read a few serious tutorials on the web.
Luckily we have some very enthusiastic amateurs who do make those efforts and I am often envious of the fantastic results they get. Perhaps I’m getting old but I have been doing Photoshop (Scanning and cameras) since the late 1980s and I still ‘Need’ to know more.
Nothing changes, you could spend a lifetime in the darkroom learning and now it’s a lifetime to learn digital. Unfortunately (For them) there will be always be those who when confronted with the problems of digital (Scanning and cameras) will just seek the quick and easy way and refuse to spend time trying to get the best results. Perhaps those who say digital = quantity are right in that respect. I mean who wants to spend time doing two or three RAW conversions of a good shot when the camera can shoot finished JPEGs!
Of course all that is no problem for us. IMO it is now far easier to produce decent results when others can’t be bothered to spend an hour or two on an image.
Anyway there is always the excuse that one prefers the pure image straight from the camera (???) being a ‘Purist’ often saves a lot of work and effort and no learning!

It ‘s an interesting idea (Amazing) that the 40D ( A great camera) can produce all that detail from copying a film negative but can’t produce it when recording reality?
Something wrong there! Crying or Very sad

The digital image demonstrates the point very well thank you for posting it.

Just shot this as a test with a very poor and old Sigma f3.5/5.6 24-70mm UC AF lens (Cost £20) Pentax K10D 400asa RAW.
Resized up to a 20 inch print (300dpi) = 6144 x 4113 pixels


PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:05 pm    Post subject: Theres digital and theres digital... Reply with quote
The problem with DSLR's using conventional Bayer/CFA sensors is that Bayer sensors cannot resolve detail to less than about 3 pixels in width or height. Sad
DSLR's using Foveon X3 sensors on the other hand can resolve detail right down to a single pixel...This is what makes pics from Sigma cameras much more film-like than those from DSLR's from other brands. Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just scan the neg with the Nikon 9000 (best slide scanner) at 4000 dpi
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Film-Scanners/9237/Super-COOLSCAN-9000-ED.html
no noise reduction, no Ice, no contrast just sharpening
with noise reduction, I loss details and letter no so sharp

For reference this is with the 40D
noise reduction, contrast & sharpened

The 40D look better because it is scanned at 8000dpi, noise reducted then resized and sharpened
But the letter on the Nikon are more fine, I think this is due to the Bayer matrix interpolation. With a Foveon, I would probably get better results

Rob wrote:
It ‘s an interesting idea (Amazing) that the 40D ( A great camera) can produce all that detail from copying a film negative but can’t produce it when recording reality?
Something wrong there!

Easy! the 40D is used in optimal condition when scanning negative
powerful flash give the max resolution, the 40D really don't need any sharpening from film scanning
In normal light, lens on 40D cannot give optimal result

Last edited by poilu on Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:48 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Impressive results in comparison with Nikon Coolscan 9000. My only problem is that I usually have 120 film to scan so I'd need a digital MF back to get similar resolution Crying or Very sad not a cheap way it seems.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Theres digital and theres digital... Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
The problem with DSLR's using conventional Bayer/CFA sensors is that Bayer sensors cannot resolve detail to less than about 3 pixels in width or height. Sad
DSLR's using Foveon X3 sensors on the other hand can resolve detail right down to a single pixel...This is what makes pics from Sigma cameras much more film-like than those from DSLR's from other brands. Very Happy


Could you show us an example of that. Perhaps a 20 inch print (300dpi) = 6144 x 4113 pixels Crop as I posted.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rob wrote:
Could you show us an example of that. Perhaps a 20 inch print (300dpi) = 6144 x 4113 pixels Crop as I posted


the sample you posted have a real resolution of 3072x2056

try this experiment : size it by 50% then size by 200%
you will get the same pic that you posted

now take my sample and try the same, you will not read the text after
this will show you that my sample have a true resolution of 6144 x 4113


PostPosted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can confirm poilu results. I tried with a helios 44 on a bellow, a diffuse flash behind and a 120 velvia 50 slide and I could get a detail of that slide at 10 MP with film grain clearly visible. Impressive, I couldn't believe it.

It's not practical for 120 film because, unless you need a very small detail, the scanner will produce better results... until I will get that new 24 MP Sony Laughing

But for 135 film this is a great method, thanks poilu for showing me how to get it. I just have some rolls of 135 Velvia 50 in the fridge Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Gallery MF
Page 1 of 1