Ansel Adams size resolution--try to duplicate in digital? Purdue Engineering claims that a film size of 9" x 9" would need a digital image size per frame of 432 mega-pixels. Now that...

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Purdue Engineering claims that a film size of 9" x 9" would need a digital image size per frame of 432 mega-pixels. Now that is resolution. How can 35mm full frame digitals compete with that?---ew

Quixdraw Loc: x

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Purdue Engineering claims that a film size of 9" x 9" would need a digital image size per frame of 432 mega-pixels. Now that is resolution. How can 35mm full frame digitals compete with that?---ew

Clearly a critical issue.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Have you ever heard of the difference between apples and turnips?

If a 35mm frame of film or full-frame sensor is roughly 36mmx24mm, why are you asking about the pixel resolution of film that is 229mmx229mm?

The only people shooting film in 2021 are fossils, the idle rich and hipsters from Brooklyn. The only ones claiming film is better than digital now 20-years into commercial digital cameras are fools.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Interpolation?

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

It's all about format --
In photography as in astronomy, size has always mattered
As proof review some of the Civil War photos

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

An 8x10 sensor..... (or 4x5).

How does one compare an 8x10 film sheet (or 4x5) to35mm?????
Filet mignon and ground chuck?

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

CHG_CANON wrote:

Have you ever heard of the difference between apples and turnips?

If a 35mm frame of film or full-frame sensor is roughly 36mmx24mm, why are you asking about the pixel resolution of film that is 229mmx229mm?

The only people shooting film in 2021 are fossils, the idle rich and hipsters from Brooklyn. The only ones claiming film is better than digital now 20-years into commercial digital cameras are fools.

I guess Mr. Canon has low resolution aspirations. But that is fine for snapshots. Nothing wrong with that?----ew

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Longshadow wrote:

An 8x10 sensor..... (or 4x5).

How does one compare an 8x10 film sheet (or 4x5) to35mm?????
Filet mignon and ground chuck?

You are totally correct and I want to rub it in. The only quality comes from large film cameras as this date. All the rest are recreational cameras as discussed on UHH. But lets make it clear which is which. i.e which is the "filet mignon and which is the chuck." The large film is the filet mignon final print.---ew

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Being a Superior Being, why are you even rolling around in the mud with us UHH bugs?

User ID

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Purdue Engineering claims that a film size of 9" x 9" would need a digital image size per frame of 432 mega-pixels. Now that is resolution. How can 35mm full frame digitals compete with that?---ew

No big deal. Only need a 4x5 camera, not a 9x9 or an 8x10. Put a sliding pano back on it. Only need 12 frames to get 450 MP including plenty of overlap for stitching. This assumes a Canon 5DSR or an R5, or a Z7, or various Sony “R” models.

Final result is about 450MP spread over an approximately 4x5” format. You can spread it over an 8x10” format if your camera is only 24MP, or you could settle for “only” 230MP on 4x5”.

For some scenes you don’t even need the pano slider. Just a 90mm or a 135 and a typical 2-axis tripod head. Really no big deal. Sometimes engineers complicate things just to justify their own existence.

Same with all the clowns who name drop “Andsel Adams”. He worked with what was available. But the stuff that was so superior long ago is now inferior and obsolete.

In the 21st century it’s the 4x5 and 8x10 cameras that have become the recreational toys. I replaced my Linhof with a Canon ... waaaaaay superior format.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Longshadow wrote:

An 8x10 sensor..... (or 4x5).

How does one compare an 8x10 film sheet (or 4x5) to35mm?????
Filet mignon and ground chuck?

In the early days of digital photography there were expensive "medium format" camera backs sold. I would expect that somewhere in limited quantity, someone has made a 400 mega pixel sensor at a huge price like maybe 50K? But for earthlings----just buy a sheet of film for that quality. At age 12 I bought a German 35mm with my own money. But the next year I went into cut film for better quality resolution, although I also have taken slides and and candid shots with 35mm all this time, also. But the quality of large film has always been left out of the conversations in UHH.---I respect large film as the leader in image capacity and quality. But there is a place for the lesser form of reproduction. Personally, I have one dozen film cameras and one dozen digital cameras. All playing their rolls in my photographic interests.---ew

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

User ID wrote:

No big deal. Only need a 4x5 camera, not a 9x9 or an 8x10. Put a sliding pano back on it. Only need 12 frames to get 450 MP including enough overlap for stitching. This assumes a Canon D5SR, or an R4, or a Z7, or various Sony “R” models.

For some scenes you don’t even need the pano slider. Just a 90mm or a 135 and a typical 2-axis tripod head. Really no big deal. Sometimes engineers complicate things just to justify their own existence.

What nonsense, we are not talking about huge panaramas in terms of megapixels. We are talking about one general perspective lens for one general perspective image. Not pieced together images. If you want 12 frames, by your reasoning we are talking about 12 x 400 megapixels also?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

OldSchool-WI wrote:

Purdue Engineering claims that a film size of 9" x 9" would need a digital image size per frame of 432 mega-pixels. Now that is resolution. How can 35mm full frame digitals compete with that?---ew

I do a lot of pano stitching, some of my images are in that range and higher.

User ID

OldSchool-WI wrote:

In the early days of digital photography there wer... (show quote)

(Download)

User ID

OldSchool-WI wrote:

What nonsense, we are not talking about huge panaramas in terms of megapixels. We are talking about one general perspective lens for one general perspective image. Not pieced together images. If you want 12 frames, by your reasoning we are talking about 12 x 400 megapixels also?

Don’t be so dense. Did you skip 3rd grade arithmetic ?