wsa111 Loc: Goose Creek, South Carolina

Just wondered if there is a number you can compare the best film quality compared to what mp digital?? Bill

jimni2001 Loc: Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA

Resolution of both film and digital are subject to the quality of lens fitted to the camera. A 36 mm x 24 mm frame of ISO 100-speed film is estimated to be between 4 and 16 million pixel depending on the type of film used. A medium format film image can record about 50 megapixels, while large format films can record around 200 megapixels (4 × 5 inch) which is around 800 megapixels on the largest common film format, 8 × 10 inches, without accounting for lens sharpness.
So a lot depends on the type of film and the quality of the lens but generally speaking digital has a long way to go to catch up to film when talking about the amount of information that it holds.

snowbear

Likewise, the pixel density of full-frame DSLRs can vary greatly. The Nikon D700 is 12.1 MP while the D800 is 36.3 MP, both having the same size sensor.

apitic Loc: Down Under

Verry ineresting comparisom. Thanks.

ninods

Does anyone know if there has been any reliable research done on this film versus digital capability/quality?

jimni2001 Loc: Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA

Why don't you look it up and get back to us?

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I have two systems that I typically use, one a modern 18 mb DSLR with a high quality lens, the other a Rollieflex E3 2.8 Planar. Several times I have taken identical pictures with both cameras, using the same tripod position. I develop the film and scan it at 2400 ppi. In both cases the images are worked on in CS5 and cropped to 11x14. What I normally see is greater detail in the film-based image when observed at 200-300%, but when observed at "normal" size (25-100%), the DSLR image appears more crisp and sharp. That difference appears to carry over to the finished prints. They definately have a different "look".

I don't have a good explanation for why this is the case and am wondering if I need a better scanner to take advantage of the Rollie's good lens. I am currently using an old Epson Perfection 2450 scanner.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

Different mediums will produce different results. For example, T.V. shows used to be on film then on video. You can really tell the difference in look. Different films would give different looks. So it depends.

Snidely Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Ken Rockwell did a good study on this. See his commentary here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I do not claim to have the answer and I certainly do not mean to suggest that the two ways of identifying film versus digital correspond! But consider this. New film resolution was stated in lppm (the ability to distinguish between line pairs per millimeter). Some 35mm reversal (slide) film is reputed to have a resolution of 150 -200 lppm. If we use an average of 175 lppm, we get a full frame with (36 X 175 X 24 X 175) 26,460,000 individual points of recognition or 26.5 megapoints. Digital cameras today can easily offer 26.5 megapixils on a full frame sensor, and we all know that the smallest individual point of recognition is a single pixel. So, although this concept is greatly simplified, I think it would be practical to compare the best film resolution to a 26.5mp full frame digital camera, everything else being equal. I have presented this concept to the mathematics department as a state university, which agrees that the comparison, while crude, is practical. The engineering department at the same university says it cannot correlate lppm to pixels (apples to oranges). Until I can see a better, more understandable comparison, I think I will use a full frame resolution of 26.5mp as a personal goal in attempting to match film. Moreover, neither Several noted experts seem to disagree that the newest crop of high resolution full frame cameras is approaching the quality of film.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

But the issue is more complicated that just pixel count. You have tonal range, saturation, low light, etc.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

Absolutely right. Everyone should understand that I just presented the first step on a significantly high ladder. Factor in the limitations of the darkroom versus PP and you have just entered the Twilight Zone - and it's a long climb to the Outer Limits!

randymoe

Perhaps this may not work out as I hope, but I just bought a Nikon PS-4 and PB-4 which is NOS macro 35mm slide copying gear. I want to copy some Velvia 50 and other films with my D800 and see what I get. I am also interested in using the PB-4 to shoot macro. I am a sucker for any camera or setup with a bellows!

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

Years ago when digital was in the 3 to 5MP range, I read in a couple major photo magazines that it would require 11MP (I assume with a full-frame sensor to exactly match a 35mm film frame size) to match 35mm film. Because there were no 10MP or 12MP sensors available at that time, the comparison had to be calculated using scientific analysis and mathematical formulas. The major magazines wouldn't have stated the comparison so precisely if there wasn't backup evidence to prove it. So, I have to think there is paper on it somewhere. But where, I don't know.