28 Oct
2012
28 Oct
'12
7:54 p.m.
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Zane H. Healy <healyzh at aracnet.com> wrote:
As has been pointed out, MegaPixels is a poor judge, BUT, consider this,
how many MP is in a sheet of 4"x5" or 8"x10" film, even when only
scanned
at 2400dpi? The best prints I've ever seen have been 8x10 contact prints
made by Edward Weston. The sharpness of these prints, especially given the
lenses he was using, is enough to blow ones mind! Digital *CAN NOT* touch
a large format contact print done by a master of the craft!
Not sure if it is applicable in still-format photography, but in the motion
picture world there is a concept of film to resolution equivalence. It's
particularly important as with film you are enlarging the 35mm stock by
several thousand percent when scanning into the digital domain. A "pixel"
in the conversion is considered to be the smallest object that can be
resolved and reproduced by the film or sensor. When using that comparison,
a 35mm print is roughly 20 megapixels, or 8K resolution, assuming the film
was shot and developed under ideal conditions. Scanning at any higher
resolution doesn't buy you more detail, as you start getting into the grain
at that point.
29 Oct
29 Oct
7:44 a.m.
On 29 Oct 2012, at 3:54 , Jason McBrien <jbmcb1 at gmail.com> wrote:
Not sure if it is applicable in still-format
photography, but in the motion
picture world there is a concept of film to resolution equivalence. It's
particularly important as with film you are enlarging the 35mm stock by
several thousand percent when scanning into the digital domain. A "pixel"
in the conversion is considered to be the smallest object that can be
resolved and reproduced by the film or sensor. When using that comparison,
a 35mm print is roughly 20 megapixels, or 8K resolution, assuming the film
was shot and developed under ideal conditions. Scanning at any higher
resolution doesn't buy you more detail, as you start getting into the grain
at that point.
Such a conversion factor is meaningless without a frame size indication.
Here are some musings on this subject, in regards to still photography:
<http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm>
.tsooJ
--
There are only 10 kinds of people in this world: those that understand binary, and those
that don't.
--
Joost van de Griek
<http://www.jvdg.net/>
8:36 a.m.
At 3:44 PM +0100 10/29/12, Joost van de Griek wrote:
Here are some musings on this subject, in regards to
still
photography: <http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm>
Referencing Ken Rockwell is another good way to start a flame war.
It is disturbing how many people think he's a credible source.
Though sometimes he is the easiest way to get basic info.
Zane
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
| My Photography Website |
| http://www.zanesphotography.com |
9:04 a.m.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 08:36:41AM -0700, Zane H. Healy wrote:
At 3:44 PM +0100 10/29/12, Joost van de Griek wrote:
I'm glad you said it and not me. It needed saying.
Here are some musings on this subject, in regards
to still
photography: <http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm>
Referencing Ken Rockwell is another good way to start a flame war.
It is disturbing how many people think he's a credible source.
Though sometimes he is the easiest way to get basic info.
Zane
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
Oh why not.
These are some of my shots, mostly snaps.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dyanora/
| My Photography Website
|
| http://www.zanesphotography.com |
Diane
--
- db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Nowadays tar can compress using yesterdays latest technologies!
4:21 p.m.
Wait... That Ken Rockwell article says *nothing* about film grain. I even searched it for
the word grain. How on earth can you write an article about the relative resolution of
film without a word regarding grain?!
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-10-29, at 12:04 PM, Diane Bruce <db at db.net> wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 08:36:41AM -0700, Zane H.
Healy wrote:
At 3:44 PM +0100 10/29/12, Joost van de Griek
wrote:
I'm glad you said it and not me. It needed saying.
Here are some musings on this subject, in regards
to still
photography: <http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm>
Referencing Ken Rockwell is another good way to start a flame war.
It is disturbing how many people think he's a credible source.
Though sometimes he is the easiest way to get basic info.
Zane
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
Oh why not.
These are some of my shots, mostly snaps.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dyanora/
| My Photography Website
|
| http://www.zanesphotography.com |
Diane
--
- db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db
Nowadays tar can compress using yesterdays latest technologies!
5:49 p.m.
You forget he's *THE* Ken Rockwell, the man that can review lenses
without ever having touched them. <insert rolling eyes emoticon>
As a Leica user his Leica reviews largely make me want to puke.
Zane
At 7:21 PM -0400 10/29/12, Paul Anderson wrote:
Wait... That Ken Rockwell article says *nothing* about
film grain. I
even searched it for the word grain. How on earth can you write an
article about the relative resolution of film without a word
regarding grain?!
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-10-29, at 12:04 PM, Diane Bruce <db at db.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 08:36:41AM -0700, Zane H. Healy wrote:
>> At 3:44 PM +0100 10/29/12, Joost van de Griek wrote:
>>> Here are some musings on this subject, in regards to still
>>> photography: <http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm>
>>
>> Referencing Ken Rockwell is another good way to start a flame war.
>> It is disturbing how many people think he's a credible source.
>> Though sometimes he is the easiest way to get basic info.
>>
>> Zane
>
> I'm glad you said it and not me. It needed saying.
>
>> +----------------------------------+----------------------------+
>> | My flickr Photostream |
>> | http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
>
> Oh why not.
>
> These are some of my shots, mostly snaps.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/dyanora/
>
>
>> | My Photography Website |
>> | http://www.zanesphotography.com |
>
> Diane
> --
> - db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db
> Nowadays tar can compress using yesterdays latest technologies!
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh at aracnet.com | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Photographer |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| My flickr Photostream |
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/33848088 at N03/ |
| My Photography Website |
| http://www.zanesphotography.com |
30 Oct
30 Oct
7:12 a.m.
On 30 Oct 2012, at 0:21 , Paul Anderson <wackyvorlon at me.com> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-10-29, at 12:04 PM, Diane Bruce <db at db.net> wrote:
Fine, here's another link:
<http://www.mindspring.com/~lorqvonray/Sticker-5mp-Velvia.html>
Point is, saying "35mm film == 24 megapixel" is stupid without reference to
frame size. The claim as stated earlier in this thread originated from the motion picture
business. So which format is "24 megapixel", then?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film#Common_formats>
Here's an idea: stop bringing resolution into these "film vs. digital"
discussions. There's tons of reasons to prefer (either) one over the other, all of
which are more interesting and valid than resolution for all but niche uses.
.tsooJ
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<o))>< <o))><
<o))><
<o))>< <o))><
<o))>< <o))><
\V/
_______|_______\|/_______V_\/vV_________\|/_____
--
Joost van de Griek
<http://www.jvdg.net/>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 08:36:41AM -0700, Zane H.
Healy wrote:
Wait... That Ken Rockwell article says *nothing* about film grain. I even searched it for
the word grain. How on earth can you write an article about the relative resolution of
film without a word regarding grain?! At 3:44 PM +0100 10/29/12, Joost van de Griek
wrote:
I'm glad you said it and not me. It needed saying. Here are some musings on this subject, in regards
to still
photography: <http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm>
Referencing Ken Rockwell is another good way to start a flame war.
It is disturbing how many people think he's a credible source.
Though sometimes he is the easiest way to get basic info.
Zane 
31 Oct
31 Oct
7:27 p.m.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:21:08PM -0400, Paul Anderson wrote:
Wait... That Ken Rockwell article says *nothing* about
film grain. I even
searched it for the word grain. How on earth can you write an article about
the relative resolution of film without a word regarding grain?!
You just saw him do it. It is Ken Rockwell after all ... so anything he
writes needs to be taken with at least a large shovel of salt.
Kind regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
4204
days inactive
4207
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
als＠thangorodrim.de -
db＠db.net -
gyorpb＠gmail.com -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
jbmcb1＠gmail.com -
wackyvorlon＠me.com