How Many MP's On A FF Equals a 35mm Canon AE1 Film Camera?
- Thread starter mjbehnke
- Start date
How many megapixels are in 35mm film? This has been debated for a long time, and there is no easy answer. I've seen estimates that said 4MP, and estimates that said 24MP, and everything in between.
Here is a great article: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_megapixels_would_it_take_to_equal_a_35mm_film_maximum_quality
Here is a great article: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_megapixels_would_it_take_to_equal_a_35mm_film_maximum_quality
Upvote
0
About 4-6mp, depending on the film type and processing. B&W will have a higher resolution than color, which is higher than color slides.
Six MP is really enough, the higher MP gives you room to crop, but is only noticible in very large prints, or viewing at 1:1 on your computer screen. I do this like most everyone else, of course.
Six MP is really enough, the higher MP gives you room to crop, but is only noticible in very large prints, or viewing at 1:1 on your computer screen. I do this like most everyone else, of course.
Upvote
0
I feel like it's not a straight forward question. Also, what speed film and which brand and product? I would believe that grain size matters, but haven't compared. It would be interesting to compare Ektar 100 (billed as world's finest grain) to Porta 160.
Upvote
0
Funny thing is last night I was up-rezzing my 5D shot (12.8mp) to print a 24" x 20" for framing.
When I upped the print area (canvas size = 24x20 with smooth gradients algorithm), the issue I saw was not blurring of details, rather ugly noise (Pic was taken at 50 ISO ) : I had to use topaz/Nik define to get rid of the noise then unsharp mask in Photoshop, but it turned out pretty good. Nik define fixed one noise pattern and Topaz the other. Both work a little differently so modest amounts of both fixed my issue without much loss of detail.
The limitation was not the sharpness/ detail, rather noise artifacts. Assuming 12.8mp was good enough for a 24" x 20" print, I'd say 2mp is enough for 4x6, 3mp for 5x7, and 8-12 mp more than ok for 8x10 prints.
When I upped the print area (canvas size = 24x20 with smooth gradients algorithm), the issue I saw was not blurring of details, rather ugly noise (Pic was taken at 50 ISO ) : I had to use topaz/Nik define to get rid of the noise then unsharp mask in Photoshop, but it turned out pretty good. Nik define fixed one noise pattern and Topaz the other. Both work a little differently so modest amounts of both fixed my issue without much loss of detail.
The limitation was not the sharpness/ detail, rather noise artifacts. Assuming 12.8mp was good enough for a 24" x 20" print, I'd say 2mp is enough for 4x6, 3mp for 5x7, and 8-12 mp more than ok for 8x10 prints.
Upvote
0
B
Bob Howland
Guest
I used a Nikon Coolscan IV ED for a few years to scan negatives and some slides, before I purchased a 10D in 2004. The resulting files have about 12MP, but can be pretty noisy, depending on the film used. That scanner has an infrared sensor channel to reduce dust spots significantly. I used it again last year but had to download Vuescan, since Nikon no longer supports that scanner with software.
If you have a lot of slides and/or negatives to scan, expect to spend years doing it. It can be pretty tedious. You don't have to sit at the computer constantly, but you do have to swap strips of six negatives every twenty minutes or so.
Hope that helps.
If you have a lot of slides and/or negatives to scan, expect to spend years doing it. It can be pretty tedious. You don't have to sit at the computer constantly, but you do have to swap strips of six negatives every twenty minutes or so.
Hope that helps.
Upvote
0
I think there are two answers.
My 8mp 30D produces images that contain as much detail as my best scanned 35mm files. (Although, a better scanner might extract better results.)
But my scanned files contain nowhere near as much detail as projected transparencies. I've often heard that fine grain film has similar resolution to a mid 20mp camera. I'd agee with that.
My 8mp 30D produces images that contain as much detail as my best scanned 35mm files. (Although, a better scanner might extract better results.)
But my scanned files contain nowhere near as much detail as projected transparencies. I've often heard that fine grain film has similar resolution to a mid 20mp camera. I'd agee with that.
Upvote
0
mjbehnke said:
I did some pretty extensive comparisons when I picked up my 7D. The 7D matches Imacon scanned, 35mm Velvia 50 on high contrast detail and beats it on low contrast and color detail. (Film's ability to resolve detail varies based on detail contrast to a greater degree than digital.) I would put 35mm Velvia 50 at 12-18 MP depending on target contrast. For most photographic scenes I would put it at around 12 MP.
Velvia 50 is the highest resolution color film in production, and it pretty much matches the highest resolution B&W films available for general photography. (Special purpose B&W films can go higher, but they make lousy picture films.) So any other film, or any lesser scanner, and the number for film goes down considerably. Most films don't break 10 MP. Most scanners are even worse regardless of their reported dpi.
I don't believe there's any detail that can be recovered by projection that is not recovered by an Imacon.
Upvote
0
From what i recall, a 6-8 MP camera can pump out a nice 8x10, which most 35mm negative B&w and color film were printed at... I've heard/seen arguments that depending on the best color slide ISO 50 film had enough detail to equate up to 24MP give or take... You should get great 8x10 prints or smaller with 6-8MP but if you got slides, you could even try upping the MP to 24 if you really want to print large, but that's your call... Digital 300 DPI vs film printing are kinda 2 separate animals but in a jumbled mess, there you go...
PS... the only reason why a lab would scan 2MP is because of speed and lack of corrections needed on the labs part to make good files. Scanning lends to a lot of messy dust and scratches if not done with the most pristine conditions and it makes the lab look bad sending back files with white specs everywhere and retouchers time are precious unless they are billing specifically for that job, so yeah...
PS... the only reason why a lab would scan 2MP is because of speed and lack of corrections needed on the labs part to make good files. Scanning lends to a lot of messy dust and scratches if not done with the most pristine conditions and it makes the lab look bad sending back files with white specs everywhere and retouchers time are precious unless they are billing specifically for that job, so yeah...
Upvote
0
Thanks for the replies! The main reason I asked was to things: 1) I have alot of negatives and a bunch of slides that I want to scan with my Canon image scanner. It has a slot in the lid for negatives and if I take out the negative holder, I can insert slides in it to scan. I just am not sure what resolution to choose 15dpi, 300dpi,????
The second part is kind of along the lines of getting a full frame digital camera. I have had some of the negatives blown up to poster size and they look excellent (B&W's as that is what I mainly shoot). If a 35mm film camera is about equal to 8-15mega pixels, than the 5dMark II should be just fine as it should perform better than my film camera???
I read so mny comments about more MP's and I just wanted to know why you would want more? How many MP's do you need to make a 20x30 poster if you only need equally 8-12 with film?
Thanks,
Matthew
The second part is kind of along the lines of getting a full frame digital camera. I have had some of the negatives blown up to poster size and they look excellent (B&W's as that is what I mainly shoot). If a 35mm film camera is about equal to 8-15mega pixels, than the 5dMark II should be just fine as it should perform better than my film camera???
I read so mny comments about more MP's and I just wanted to know why you would want more? How many MP's do you need to make a 20x30 poster if you only need equally 8-12 with film?
Thanks,
Matthew
Upvote
0
mjbehnke said:
Earlier this year I did a comparison using the following:
film: EOS650, 50mm f/1.4, Speedlite 430EZ, Kodak TMAX 100
digital: EOS 5DmkII, 50mm f/1.4, Speedlite 580EXII.
Shooting roughly the same composition, the 5DII gave much better resolution (at ISO640) than the TMAX 100 black and white film did.
This was not a scientifically conducted test, but rather a subjective evaluation to satisfy my curiosity.
My feeling now is that you need to be really dedicated to want to shoot film.
Bear in mind that, as has been pointed out, film grain and digital noise are different in nature, which makes a direct comparison difficult.
Upvote
0
I'd agree with the above comment 100%. I was late moving to digital thinking that film was better than some of the lower resolution cameras. I was rather surprised to find that an 8mp camera was consistently better than my scanning efforts (admittedly, I'm just using a Canon 9950F). Plus you save a lot of time. There's no quality benefit in 35mm film.
Of course, medium format and large format are a different story. And B & W has a fun craft aspect.
Normally, a scanning resolution would be a lot higher (eg 2400dpi). But your software might be asking this in a round about way based on your intended print size. All I can say is give it a try. If you end up with a file that is at least several MB in size, you are probably on the right track. When I scan at 2400dpi, I end up with a TIFF image just over 20mb. This is more than enough reolution to produce a good 8x10 print (or bigger).
Of course, medium format and large format are a different story. And B & W has a fun craft aspect.
Normally, a scanning resolution would be a lot higher (eg 2400dpi). But your software might be asking this in a round about way based on your intended print size. All I can say is give it a try. If you end up with a file that is at least several MB in size, you are probably on the right track. When I scan at 2400dpi, I end up with a TIFF image just over 20mb. This is more than enough reolution to produce a good 8x10 print (or bigger).
Upvote
0
Digital is certainly still behind film in available dynamic range. Its not all about noise, in fact I often think that there is far too much fuss made about noise these days. I actually add noise to monochrome images in an attempt to recreate that gritty texture that fast black & white films would give me.
So as others have already said, the answer to the original question has no simple answer. It can vary from "6MP" up to "Digital cannot match that" depending on what is being asked.
So as others have already said, the answer to the original question has no simple answer. It can vary from "6MP" up to "Digital cannot match that" depending on what is being asked.
Upvote
0
motorhead said:
That depends entirely on the film. Velvia? DSLRs have a much wider DR. Portra? They're not quite there yet. The others fall somewhere in between. With B&W it depends on the emulsion and processing. Some film and developer combos can yield incredible DR.
One thing you'll find is that there is usually a trade off with film, or at least with color film, between resolution and DR. Velvia can hold its own on a good scanner in terms of resolution, but has much less DR. Portra can exceed a DSLR's DR, but can't touch it in terms of resolution. The combination of resolution, dynamic range, and high ISO capability in today's DSLRs is simply unmatched in 35mm film.
Upvote
0
gmrza said:
Just out of curiosity: how did you compare this and how was the Kodak film printed? If you send it in and received "prints" from a lab then the result doesn't surprise me. One of the reasons I finally caved in and bought a digital camera is that "modern" film processing is done by developing in chemistry, scanning the film with some mass scanning device at low resolution and then printing it with the same ink jet technology that unfortunately is now used for everything. The results are pretty bad so that I stopped making photographs for several years since I do not have my own darkroom and paying a specialty lab to make an actual traditional print is expensive and quite a bit of hassle. Color prints are pretty much out of the question these days.
So for an actual comparison you'd have to refer to slides and project them. Or make you're own b/w prints or pay someone to do it for you.
When I look at that I still feel that 35mm film is about in the same category as my 5DII or even slightly better because real prints are just better than ink jet printouts. But that is of course no scientific comparison either just my impression - and not necessarily centered around "sharpness" and detail but a certain depth that the old prints had. Also the grain looks more natural to me than the artificial smoothness of digital. But that's less a technical question but rather a question of what you are used to and what we have grown to expect. Digital has certainly changed aesthetics. Not saying that is good or bad, but it makes such a comparison so difficult.
I hope digital, especially the printing aspect further develops - and I also hope that film will survive to some extend. I'll continue to use both.
Upvote
0
dtaylor said:
In order to fully compare film you need to kinda need to consider the output of slides vs negatives... Negatives were very measurable and scrutinized because you could physically see the grain, you could see the imperfections when printed because you could see it inches from your face... That is why most pro photographers would not print 35mm higher than 8x10... even at ISO 100 film... Heck some pro's would shoot medium format for 8x10 through 20x24 and beyond. Slides on the other hand did have higher resolutions, a lot better resolution, but those were designed to be projected onto screens much bigger than any negative would dare be projected, but then again to be fair, most people were veiwing these projections feet away from the screen so image quality breakdown was not really noticeable and "pixel peeping" as you will was not really available unless you took a loop/microscope to the film. I wouldn't say that digital has exceeded or needs to play catchup with film... in slide terms, I would say it is pretty much on par, even though as debated in another thread regarding incamera processing and intel computer processing where we determined the incamera processing was slightly better than the intel computer processing whether it be photoshop/lightroom/aperture/etc... I think to some regards the processing abilities of digital files post capture may be lagging just a bit whcih may also affect resolution... In film you could over process/under process/cross process/do whatever and grain wasn't as affected as a digital file would be once you try to push exposure and or do special effects...
Scan your film at whatever your desired output... you can always overscan it... do whatever post production clean up work you wish and then down sample to have a buttery clean output file, but that is your call and only your call... FYI 150DPI vs 300DPI... 300DPI is the industry standard resolution at printing... any more DPI you probably couldn't physically see any difference and some printers can print good 150DPI files, however they are the exception to the rule. Most professional photo labs still base resolution standards at 300DPI and you really cant go wrong using 300DPI.
Upvote
0
J
J. McCabe
Guest
Zo0m said:I think the average lab will give you 2mp files when they process film to jpeg... Guess that shows megapixels arent everything
My impression is that what labs do by default (that is, without the client asking for something different) isn't exactly a measurement of what film can do, specifically:
1. Labs care about speed (e.g. 1 hour guarantee), which means scanning low res to save on time.
[I actually asked a lab to give me the best res they could give me. After talking to four different people, and rejecting an offer to buy a scanner, I got 6MP bitmaps, quadruple the regular price, they'll call me when it's done.]
2. Customers usually want to view photos on computer screen or printed 4x6 / 5x7, and 2mp is sufficient.
3. Customers who choose lab scanning, rather than DIY, probably didn't buy the best film and lenses and shot handheld, so the results don't exactly stretch the limits of film abilities.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
