Professional Web Applications Themes

Times article: megapixels - Adobe Photoshop Elements

I found this article in the Circuits section of Thursday's (October 30, 2003) New York Times enlightening: "A Shutterbug's Guide to Meting Out the Megapixels" by Ivan Berger <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/30/technology/circuits/30basi.html> One thing that interested me was the claim that "35-millimeter film...has a resolution equivalent to 20 or 30 megapixels" (by comparison with the 2-6 megapixels common in digital photography). --Paul B. Chicago...

Sponsored Links
  1. #1

    Default Times article: megapixels

    I found this article in the Circuits section of Thursday's (October 30, 2003) New York Times enlightening:

    "A Shutterbug's Guide to Meting Out the Megapixels" by Ivan Berger

    <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/30/technology/circuits/30basi.html>

    One thing that interested me was the claim that "35-millimeter film...has a resolution equivalent to 20 or 30 megapixels" (by comparison with the 2-6 megapixels common in digital photography).

    --Paul B.
    Chicago
    Sponsored Links
    Paul_Bullen@adobeforums.com Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    I coulnot read the article without logging in.
    Nevertheless, some films indeed seem to have that resolution. Still the quality of 6 megapixel cameras looks better......
    Reason: digital has no grain. You can only see the difference at edges and in extremely structured parts of the image. If part of the image has a solid colour, digital is superior. Usually there is more solid colour than edges in an image.

    Leen
    Leen_Koper@adobeforums.com Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    > "35-millimeter film... 

    Seems certainly true, maybe even more for certain films.

    A 4000ppi scan of 35mm (Nikon IV, for example), is 21 MP
    A 5400ppi scan (new Minolta model), is 39 MP

    Some folks on comp.periphs.scanners have shown that some 35mm films can
    resolve line pairs that exceed the capability of the Nikon IV to
    duplicate. Whether that line pair rez also exceeds the 5400ppi scan
    capability, I dunno.

    Mac
    Mac_McDougald@adobeforums.com Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    Mac,
    If you print an 8x10 from a 35mm image using an enlarger and good photosensitive paper, how does the printed resoution compare to an 8x10 from a high-res scan of the same image printed on a good high-quality inkjet printer? I've always wondered about that.
    Bert
    Bert_Bigelow@adobeforums.com Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    I found the comments about making large prints very interesting. I have to say that with my canon, the prints at the native res of 180 ppi are not noticeably inferior to prints made at 300 ppi, just larger. I would have expected to see sharper detail in the 300ppi prints, but honestly there's very little difference.
    Barbara_Brundage@adobeforums.com Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    <honestly there's very little difference>

    Barbara, I agree; I've had the same experience. Part of the explanation may
    be that the printer is probably doing some of its own 'resampling' of the
    images sent its way. One of these days I'll send a picture to the printer
    with one set of linear dimensions and two resolutions (maybe 150 and 300),
    then look at the output with a magnifier.

    Chuck


    Chuck_Snyder@adobeforums.com Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    If you were doing espionage or detective work and needed to get information from a photograph by enlarging a small portion to see what was going on, would there be more detail to work with if the photo was taken with film?

    Last January I retrieved some slides I had taken at a 3-day outdoor rock festival in the late 60s. I had not viewed them for 35 years. I was 15 at the time and I had a pretty humble camera (not an SLR). I had them scanned at Helix in Chicago (possibly a mistake) and using Photosophy Elements (which I barely knew how to use) was able to get something acceptable even from pictures that were way to overexposed. But relevant to the question of detail, I happened to notice a sign way in the distance. All I had remembered about the identity of the festival that it was somewhere in northern Washington state (I had descended from Vancouver), probably in 1968. By enlarging the sign I was able to discern the name of the festival, and by a google search find out a lot of information about it. If I had taken those photographs with a digital camera, would I have been unable to read the sign?

    You can see the photos at <http://paul.bullen.com/SkyRiverFestival/>

    The banner is in the first two photos.

    --Paul
    Paul_Bullen@adobeforums.com Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    Hello Paul, you have some nice pics there and good taste in
    music. I won't tell our age but my wife and I still enjoy the
    same old tunes and my son has carried on the tradition. He left
    Denver yesterday for N.Y.C. to see Widespread Panic for
    Halloween. If I'm not mistaken he has made about 60 shows this
    year alone, youth is a wonderful thing. I believe they are now
    referred to as "Spread Heads".
    --
    Have A Nice Day,
    jwh :-)
    My Pictures
    http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview

    <com> wrote in message
    news:la2eafNXanI... 
    information from a photograph by enlarging a small portion to see
    what was going on, would there be more detail to work with if the
    photo was taken with film? 
    15 with a humble camera (not an SLR) of a late-60s 3-day outdoor
    rock festival. I had not set eyes on the slide since that time. I
    had them scanned at Helix in Chicago (possibly a mistake) and,
    using Photosophy Elements (with which I barely familiar), was
    able to get something acceptable even from pictures that were way
    too overexposed. But relevant to the question of detail, I
    happened to notice a sign way in the distance. All I had
    remembered about the identity of the festival that it was
    somewhere in northern Washington state (I had descended from
    Vancouver), probably in 1968. By enlarging the sign I was able to
    discern the name of the festival, and by a google search find out
    a lot of information about it. If I had taken those photographs
    with a digital camera, would I have been unable to read the sign? 
    <http://paul.bullen.com/SkyRiverFestival/> 


    jhjl1@adobeforums.com Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    Not real sure.
    Assuming a perfect neg (no camera shake, good lens on camera, perfect
    focus, etc), much depends on the quality of the enlarger lens too.

    I've heard any number of folks there claim, though (and with line pair
    experimental evidence), that a 4000ppi scan of 35mm, re-imaged to photo
    paper via Fuji Frontier (or similar) beats conventional photo printing to
    paper. Meaning it resolves more line pairs that way.

    Mac

    Mac_McDougald@adobeforums.com Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    > If I had taken those photographs with a digital camera, 

    Depends.
    While you would likely have lower overall resolution, just about anyway
    you wanted to define "resolution", you would likely have had more depth
    of field, assuming your film camera wasn't focused on infinity.

    (digicams have greater depth of field at same F/Stop than do film cams).

    Mac
    Mac_McDougald@adobeforums.com Guest

  11. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    Removed by Administrator
    Mark_Reibman@adobeforums.com Guest
    Moderated Post

  12. #12

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    "the first time", huh? :)
    Beth_Haney@adobeforums.com Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    This is a most interesting subject. Would hope for some more expertise comments from the experts. (Expert on pixels, not rock and roll and inhaling.)

    I have a lifetime behind me of negative film use, frequently going to enlargements up to 16" X 20".

    Since learning to play with computer, e-mail transmittals, and web pages, including PS Elements I have drifted away from enlargements due to enjoying this new media. Have resisted buying a digital camera because of reading about resolution limitations. What I do currently is have my film developed with CD. There is a place here that gives a higher resolution than the typical Picture CD, from which they make excellent quality 8" x 12"s from 35 mm. With 120 film, they do even better.

    Recently I took a print someone shot with a digital camera, had it printed 8 x 10, then took it to Kinko's and had them enlarge it on a copy machine to 11 x 14, using a semi-gloss photo type paper. No noticeable loss in resolution. What if I had gone to poster size at Kinko's? Would I see pixels, or grain?

    I am now considering buying a digital camera. Should I wait until 8 megapixels becomes more common (and cheaper)? Or can I reasonably expect to get high quality 11 x 14's, or even 16 x 20's with a 4 or 5 megapixel?

    Al
    Al_Millstein@adobeforums.com Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    Al wrote: 
    it printed 8 x 10, then took it to Kinko's and had them enlarge
    it on a copy machine to 11 x 14, using a semi-gloss photo type
    paper. No noticeable loss in resolution. What if I had gone to
    poster size at Kinko's? Would I see pixels, or grain?

    James wrote>
    What was the megapixel count of the camera used?
     
    until 8 megapixels becomes more common (and cheaper)? Or can I
    reasonably expect to get high quality 11 x 14's, or even 16 x
    20's with a 4 or 5 megapixel?

    James wrote>
    As a photographer you know that a lot of factors can
    come into play. One must consider the sensor quality, lens
    quality, algorithms used for in-camera processing, post
    processing by photographer, etc. etc.. I have printed up to 11 x
    14's from my 6.3 megapixel camera that I am happy with. By the
    time the 8 megapixel cameras are more affordable you will be
    reading about the breakthrough 12 megapixel models. Go ahead and
    buy one and start enjoying it. Digital cameras are like
    computers, as soon as you get one there is a new and better model
    for less money just sitting on the shelf with your name on it.

    --
    Have A Nice Day,
    jwh :-)
    My Pictures
    http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview




    jhjl1@adobeforums.com Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels



    can I reasonably expect to get high quality 11 x 14's, or even 16 x 20's
    with a 4 or 5 megapixel?




    Do you know, I think maybe you could, Al. I just decided to sacrifice some paper and ink to see. I took 3x3 tiff at 300 ppi and ran it up to about 15 x 15 (not sure exactly because I had to crop after a while to make it fit on the paper) and I was very surprised, even on my non-photo printer, at how decent the result was.

    The flaws in my photography were more apparent, of course. It was a picture of some Indian corn and some of the silk was not very well in focus and it was REALLY not in focus by the end.

    But most of the degradation seemed to come from the fact that i had over-applied the unsharp mask--every time I thought I was through I unsharped it, then thought, "Nah. Let's go some more." i think if I had known I was going that far and so waited till the last step that the result would have been pretty tolerable.
    Barbara_Brundage@adobeforums.com Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    Forgot to say the original was taken with an S400. Only 4 megapixels and pretty small sensors.
    Barbara_Brundage@adobeforums.com Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    Al, you don't have to wait for an 8 megapixel camera. I use the Fuji S2 Pro, a 6 megapixel camera and I can print 24"x36" (60x90 cm) without any visible problem. (I did it yesterday)
    The bicubic interpolation in PE probably allows even larger prints, although I haven't tried until now.

    Leen
    Leen_Koper@adobeforums.com Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Times article: megapixels

    Leen-

    Thanks for the info.

    Do you send them out commercially? Do them yourself? If yourself, what methodology, equipment, what paper, etc?

    Al
    Al_Millstein@adobeforums.com Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Article on <img> tag?
    By jelampitt in forum Macromedia Flash Actionscript
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 2nd, 01:14 AM
  2. help! how many megapixels do i need?
    By andy in forum Photography
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: January 27th, 10:20 AM
  3. Sony's DSC-F828 Cyber-shot Camera 8 megapixels
    By sasquatch in forum Photography
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 21st, 02:24 PM
  4. [PHP] Article: PHP vs ASP
    By Jay Blanchard in forum PHP Development
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 31st, 02:34 PM

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