Professional Web Applications Themes

Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame - Photography

Funny thing that I can't seem to recall this, but there must be an equivalent resolution for typical grade 35 mm film; ie - when the smallest scene details (eg - distant or small writing) can be discerned as compared to some "x" resolution digicam. Anyone know ? .......

  1. #1

    Default Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    Funny thing that I can't seem to recall this, but there must be an
    equivalent resolution for typical grade 35 mm film; ie - when the
    smallest scene details (eg - distant or small writing) can be
    discerned as compared to some "x" resolution digicam. Anyone know ?
    ....
    Stephen G. Giannoni Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    "Stephen G. Giannoni" <casagiannoniearthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:lah3hvc2r6ersqlhs6an3j8bl7hnpuff7n4ax.com...
    > Funny thing that I can't seem to recall this, but there must be an
    > equivalent resolution for typical grade 35 mm film; ie - when the
    > smallest scene details (eg - distant or small writing) can be
    > discerned as compared to some "x" resolution digicam. Anyone know ?
    > ...
    About 3000ppi to 4000ppi. Somewhere around 20 Megapixels for 35 mm.

    [url]http://www.scantips.com/basics08.html[/url]

    --
    CSM1
    [url]http://www.carlmcmillan.com[/url]
    --


    CSM1 Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    "Stephen G. Giannoni" <casagiannoniearthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:lah3hvc2r6ersqlhs6an3j8bl7hnpuff7n4ax.com
    > Funny thing that I can't seem to recall this, but there must be an
    > equivalent resolution for typical grade 35 mm film; ie - when the
    > smallest scene details (eg - distant or small writing) can be
    > discerned as compared to some "x" resolution digicam. Anyone know ?
    [url]http://groups.google.com[/url]

    --
    John T
    [url]http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer[/url]
    _______________



    John T Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    Stephen G. Giannoni writes:
    > Funny thing that I can't seem to recall this, but
    > there must be an equivalent resolution for typical
    > grade 35 mm film ...
    Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a "typical" 35mm film, and
    resolution varies enormously with the type of film. There are other
    variables as well, such as the lens (extremely important), and whether
    or not a tripod or mirror lock-up is used.

    Even development makes a difference. And since most film is scanned
    today, the quality of the scan can make or break the final image.
    > ie - when the smallest scene details (eg - distant
    > or small writing) can be discerned as compared to some
    > "x" resolution digicam. Anyone know ?
    Under good conditions, I get about 22 megapixels or more with
    fine-grained film. It is not clear whether the limiting factor is the
    lens or the film, as both tend to top off very near each other.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    "Stephen G. Giannoni" <casagiannoniearthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:lah3hvc2r6ersqlhs6an3j8bl7hnpuff7n4ax.com...
    > Funny thing that I can't seem to recall this, but there must be an
    > equivalent resolution for typical grade 35 mm film; ie - when the
    > smallest scene details (eg - distant or small writing) can be
    > discerned as compared to some "x" resolution digicam. Anyone know ?
    > ...
    Before you get carried away counting pixels, check out this comparison of
    the lowly D30 and Fuji Velvia:

    [url]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film[/url].


    Mark B. Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    There may be a lot of argument about what is a typical film. However,
    some good films measure out to roughly 100 line pairs per mm. That is
    200 pixels per mm, or 5000 pixels per inch. On a 35mm frame, that is
    7200 x 4800 pixels. Now, there are MANY other factors that limit
    resolution other than just the film, so you are lucky to get half that
    value when EVERYTHING is factored in, which brings you to about the
    values CSMI gets.

    CSM1 wrote:
    >
    > "Stephen G. Giannoni" <casagiannoniearthlink.net> wrote in message
    > news:lah3hvc2r6ersqlhs6an3j8bl7hnpuff7n4ax.com...
    > > Funny thing that I can't seem to recall this, but there must be an
    > > equivalent resolution for typical grade 35 mm film; ie - when the
    > > smallest scene details (eg - distant or small writing) can be
    > > discerned as compared to some "x" resolution digicam. Anyone know ?
    > > ...
    >
    > About 3000ppi to 4000ppi. Somewhere around 20 Megapixels for 35 mm.
    >
    > [url]http://www.scantips.com/basics08.html[/url]
    >
    > --
    > CSM1
    > [url]http://www.carlmcmillan.com[/url]
    > --
    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota
    [email]staufferusfamily.net[/email]
    webpage- [url]http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer[/url]
    Don Stauffer Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    Consider the film vs Digital cycle --

    Film -- image passes through a lens, onto film, film developed, then
    image passed through a lens again then printed on highly reflective
    optically brightened paper. (admittedly some newer printers scan the
    image and print digitally). 2 passes through a lens and flare from the
    paper have got to degrade the image.

    Digital -- image passes through a lens onto a sensor -- from there on no
    image degradation

    Don Stauffer wrote:
    > There may be a lot of argument about what is a typical film. However,
    > some good films measure out to roughly 100 line pairs per mm. That is
    > 200 pixels per mm, or 5000 pixels per inch. On a 35mm frame, that is
    > 7200 x 4800 pixels. Now, there are MANY other factors that limit
    > resolution other than just the film, so you are lucky to get half that
    > value when EVERYTHING is factored in, which brings you to about the
    > values CSMI gets.
    >
    > CSM1 wrote:
    >
    >>"Stephen G. Giannoni" <casagiannoniearthlink.net> wrote in message
    >>news:lah3hvc2r6ersqlhs6an3j8bl7hnpuff7n4ax.com. ..
    >>
    >>>Funny thing that I can't seem to recall this, but there must be an
    >>>equivalent resolution for typical grade 35 mm film; ie - when the
    >>>smallest scene details (eg - distant or small writing) can be
    >>>discerned as compared to some "x" resolution digicam. Anyone know ?
    >>>...
    >>
    >>About 3000ppi to 4000ppi. Somewhere around 20 Megapixels for 35 mm.
    >>
    >>[url]http://www.scantips.com/basics08.html[/url]
    >>
    >>--
    >>CSM1
    >>[url]http://www.carlmcmillan.com[/url]
    >>--
    >
    >
    ME Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    ME writes:
    > Digital -- image passes through a lens onto a sensor --
    > from there on no image degradation
    Unfortunately, that first conversion is a major degradation.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    Kodak film scientist was quoted to say that, in a scientific magazine,
    the upper limits of 35mm film in use today by consumers is about
    ~25.8MP. Thus, consumer digicams have a far ways to go before even
    matching the resolution and detail in film in prints.

    David Chien Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    7200 x 4800 Pixels (as discussed earlier) gives a resolution of about
    34.5 mp A little more than your 25.8 -- But you're never going to get
    that, or 25.8, even with the finest lenses. A good eyeball can resolve
    about 100 lines/mm on paper, so to some extent the point is mute

    THe MTF of lenses, and the resolution of film and receptors can be
    measured, but I have never seen any discussion of what happens to an
    image optically printed on brightened paper. (The paper fluoresces on
    exposure to light)

    See
    [url]http://www.yorku.ca/eye/mtf.htm[/url]
    [url]http://www.yorku.ca/eye/mtf2.htm[/url]
    and even a discussion of MTF for eyeballs
    [url]http://ise.stanford.edu/class/psych221/98/IjspeertMTF/IjspeertMTF.html[/url]


    David Chien wrote:
    > Kodak film scientist was quoted to say that, in a scientific magazine,
    > the upper limits of 35mm film in use today by consumers is about
    > ~25.8MP. Thus, consumer digicams have a far ways to go before even
    > matching the resolution and detail in film in prints.
    >
    ME Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame


    "Don Stauffer" <staufferusfamily.net> wrote in message
    news:3F12B55C.8333095Cusfamily.net...
    > There may be a lot of argument about what is a typical film. However,
    > some good films measure out to roughly 100 line pairs per mm. That is
    > 200 pixels per mm, or 5000 pixels per inch. On a 35mm frame, that is
    > 7200 x 4800 pixels. Now, there are MANY other factors that limit
    > resolution other than just the film, so you are lucky to get half that
    > value when EVERYTHING is factored in, which brings you to about the
    > values CSMI gets.
    > CSM1 wrote:
    > > About 3000ppi to 4000ppi. Somewhere around 20 Megapixels for 35 mm.
    Reality check: There's something very problematic about the "20 MP" number:
    everyone who compares 35mm film images to 1Ds images (10.8 MP) finds the 1Ds
    looks better and captures more detail...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan



    David J. Littleboy Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    "David J. Littleboy" <davidjlgol.com> wrote in message
    news:bev9em$l80$1nnrp.gol.com...
    >
    > "Don Stauffer" <staufferusfamily.net> wrote in message
    > news:3F12B55C.8333095Cusfamily.net...
    > > There may be a lot of argument about what is a typical film. However,
    > > some good films measure out to roughly 100 line pairs per mm. That is
    > > 200 pixels per mm, or 5000 pixels per inch. On a 35mm frame, that is
    > > 7200 x 4800 pixels. Now, there are MANY other factors that limit
    > > resolution other than just the film, so you are lucky to get half that
    > > value when EVERYTHING is factored in, which brings you to about the
    > > values CSMI gets.
    >
    > > CSM1 wrote:
    > > > About 3000ppi to 4000ppi. Somewhere around 20 Megapixels for 35 mm.
    >
    > Reality check: There's something very problematic about the "20 MP"
    number:
    > everyone who compares 35mm film images to 1Ds images (10.8 MP) finds the
    1Ds
    > looks better and captures more detail...
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    >
    Exactly - the limiting factor is our own eyeballs and the lenses used to
    capture the images. But no matter how good the lenses & sensors get, it's a
    moot point once you reach the resolving power of our own eyes. 20mp might
    be good for poster or maybe billboard prints, but for the average user going
    no bigger than say 11x14, I don't think there will be much benefit beyond
    8-12mp.

    Mark


    Mark B. Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    David J. Littleboy writes:
    > ... everyone who compares 35mm film images to 1Ds images
    > (10.8 MP) finds the 1Ds looks better and captures more detail...
    Not me.

    Maybe if more people didn't depend on dime-store scans, they would see
    things differently.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame


    "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanichotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:kid6hvo2prbo5k5nu1ckt1ao5li2715q3r4ax.com...
    SNIP
    > Maybe if more people didn't depend on dime-store scans, they would see
    > things differently.
    What if we compare a dime-store raw conversion with a dime-store scan?
    [url]http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_35mm.html[/url]

    Bart


    Bart van der Wolf Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame


    "Mark B." <mbohntrash54comcast.net> wrote:
    > "David J. Littleboy" <davidjlgol.com> wrote in message
    > >
    > > Reality check: There's something very problematic
    > > about the "20 MP" number:
    > > everyone who compares 35mm film images to 1Ds
    > > images (10.8 MP) finds the 1Ds
    > > looks better and captures more detail...
    >
    > Exactly - the limiting factor is our own eyeballs and the lenses used to
    > capture the images. But no matter how good the lenses & sensors get, it's
    a
    > moot point once you reach the resolving power of our own eyes. 20mp might
    > be good for poster or maybe billboard prints, but for the average user
    going
    > no bigger than say 11x14, I don't think there will be much benefit beyond
    > 8-12mp.
    That's not what I'm saying at all. For landscape work, more detail is always
    appreciated, since the game is to draw the user into the image, to invite a
    closer look and to stand up to that closer look. Photographs that actually
    have a subject, like portraits and macros, and photographs with a strong
    graphic/design content can get away with a mere 8 to 12 MP.

    What I was saying is that every comparison of the 1Ds to 35mm film (except
    for our friend the maniac) shows 35mm film to be the lesser medium, so that
    the claim that "35mm resolves 20MP" is problematic.

    Other than the maniac, the people who think that "35mm resolves 20MP" base
    that on extremely low contrast, high noise, barely detectable responses to
    high contrast targets. Since the quality of those images is too low to
    actually use, those numbers are meaningless. In actual practice, the 1Ds
    out-resolves film, even though film has an extremely long tail to its MTF
    curve.

    [url]http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_35mm.html[/url]

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan



    David J. Littleboy Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    Rafe B. writes:
    > Except in this case you're arguing against at least
    > two folks using the same high-end scanner as you,
    > and who know what they're doing when they make a scan.
    I haven't seen their scans.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    Bart van der Wolf writes:
    > What if we compare a dime-store raw conversion
    > with a dime-store scan?
    > [url]http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_35mm.html[/url]
    I'd expect digital to win, as digital usually has the advantage in
    less-than-optimal workflows. The scans you reference above show the
    bubbles in Provia emulsions (which I never see on my scans) and a
    general lack of resolution. The digital photos, though, show smearing
    of colors, built-in unsharp-masking, and some lack of detail in some
    areas.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    Rafe B. writes:
    > Here you go, big guy.
    The scans look fine to me, although it is instantly obvious that they
    are from color negative film.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  19. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    Removed by Administrator
    Rafe B. Guest
    Moderated Post

  20. #20

    Default Re: Effective Resolution, 35 mm Film Frame

    I agree. The enlarger lens can be a much better lens, since it is
    generally not a fast one. Most enlarger lenses have moderate f/#s,
    moderate fields of view, and single focal length (non-zoom). Flare from
    paper should be very low in a good lab. In home printing just wear a
    dark shirt, paint your darkroom black or deep red, and paint any shiny
    parts of enlarger (some enlargers did have stupid chrome parts :-(
    ).

    Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    > ME writes:
    >
    > > Digital -- image passes through a lens onto a sensor --
    > > from there on no image degradation
    >
    > Unfortunately, that first conversion is a major degradation.
    >
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    --
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota
    [email]staufferusfamily.net[/email]
    webpage- [url]http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer[/url]
    Don Stauffer Guest

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Can a film loop play once, then loop on the last frame(s)?
    By Schiemer webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Director Lingo
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 29th, 03:35 AM
  2. how to determine displayed site in other frame in a flash film?
    By Florian Harr in forum Macromedia Flash
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 17th, 02:14 PM
  3. go to another stage frame inside a film loop crashes director mx
    By eljolge webforumsuser@macromedia.com in forum Macromedia Director Lingo
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: July 24th, 03:08 AM
  4. Film Scanner or Flatbed with Film Adaptor??
    By Jan Philips in forum Photography
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 22nd, 05:37 AM
  5. Digital Film / Silicon Film(tm) - for real ?
    By Ken Chandler in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 26th, 10:30 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139