how can we compare 35mm film and digital images

  chubbs 21:01 17 Jun 03
Locked

How many pixels would be needed for a ccd chip to match the definition and 'grain' of a 35mm film - assuming the lenses can resolve an equal number of lines?
How many pixels would be needed to match medium format film?

  marjted 21:15 17 Jun 03

Don't know the scientific answer to your question but 300 pixels/inch on a good inkjet produces excellent images which compare most favourably with 35mm film photos.

  jazzypop 21:18 17 Jun 03
  BrianW 21:19 17 Jun 03

I think the new 11mp camera ccds are clained to contain as much information as the grain on a 35mm print. Still a long way to match the large format film standar though

  GANDALF <|:-)> 21:37 17 Jun 03

35mm colour tran (25/50ASA) = 36Mps. The difference twixt digi and film images is only obvious when you print above A£ or enlarge a small area. Digi images look sharper because they use block colour for large areas (blue sky).

G

  richierich 22:29 17 Jun 03

As a professional portrait photographer I regularly enlarge digital images to 24" by 20" and bigger, I use Fuji S1 and S2 cameras, the results are SUPERIOR to 35mm film and probably superior to medium format which I used to use.
number of pixels isnt only consideration. Lens quality, how the files are processed and how they are output to print are also key to quality.

  eccomputers 22:59 17 Jun 03

yes, I know a guy who has software for colour calbration. I dont know the details, I just know he matches the colours of the scanner, monitor and printer. I think its a great idea cause when I see a shade of blue on my monitor and print it, it looks totally different.

  Filch 15:37 18 Jun 03

The problem with colour calibration is that it is quite expensive and it won't work with LCD screens. However, Adobe Photoshop Elements and all the full Photoshop programmes come with a calibration programme, Adobe Gamma (which still won't work with LCD).

  woodchip 15:59 18 Jun 03

Not possible with today's technology, but you would have to have good eye's to see the difference without a eyeglass.

  woodchip 16:02 18 Jun 03

It's bit like running your Monitor Display at 16bit you would not see the difference from 24 or 32 bit it's beyond the spectrum of the humane eye

  DieSse 16:48 18 Jun 03

Take good note of what richierich said - wise words from a professional.

Also remember there is no universal "grain size" to compare with - it depends on the type and speed of the film.

For a good (longish, but a good read) primer on pixels, resolution, etc (I know it says scanning - but the principles are similar), look at click here It points out a few homw truths about silly resolution claims.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Amazon Fire HD 8 review: A brilliant combination of function and value – with one massive caveat

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

How to create an introvert-friendly workplace

Apple Watch Series 2 review | Apple Watch 2 review: New Apple Watch is faster, brighter,…