Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

14 bit ADCs are common now with 16 bit available on the high end (Fuji GFX). So noting 12 bit ADCs is very outdated. But more concerning is trying to link the ADC bit depth to dynamic range. A sensor's dynamic range is not determined or measured by the ADC bit depth and a sensor's dynamic range likewise does not determine the ADC bit depth. For example cameras A and B could both be equipped with 14 bit ADCs and at the same time have sensors with 3 or 4 stops difference in dynamic range -- both with the same number of shades of gray. The seeming link suggested in the page you displayed between dynamic range and ADC bit depth then raises questions about the author's overall competence. So can you quote a reliable source?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Let me be devil’s advocate for a moment. I’m not supporting the concept that film is more useful or a better reproduction media than digital or that resolution is the be all and end all, but I do think the data supports that really good film like Velvia has higher resolution than an equivalent sized state of the art digital sensor. For example, a 24x36mm 24 MP digital sensor has almost exactly the same number of pixels/mm (166) as Velvia has LP/mm. Now if we make the assumption that a pixel = a LP (and I have no idea if that’s true), they would seem to be almost exactly equal, BUT the digital camera needs 4 pixels (2 green, 1 blue, 1 red assuming a Bayer array) to define 1 color pixel, so it would seem that Velvia has ~4x the raw resolution of a 24 MP 35mm Bayer array sensor and ~2X that of a 50 MP sensor.

BUT, there is more to the recording/reproduction system than just the sensor. There is the resolution of the lens and that of the display or the print, which in the end, are often the limiting factor(s) in terms of resolution of the entire SYSTEM, so in the end, it doesn’t really matter which media has the highest resolution (and let’s not forget DR and noise/grain). Just an academic discussion…

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Let me be the devil's advocate. If film had resolution size for size even remotely close to a modern digital sensor then why didn't they make film scanners back in the hybrid era that could handle that film res? My lab had a $18,000 leaf scanner that maxed out scanning 35mm film at 5000 ppi. Your desktop Nikon Coolscan was 4000 ppi and that allowd us to scan the film grain. If we could scan 35mm at 4000 ppi and see the film grain in the scan what resolution were we missing? A 35mm film scanner maxed at 4000 ppi is equivalent to a 12 megapixel sensor.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Dear Canon: Correct even though as photographers--you don't have to inform about the need of lens quality. Probably that is the reason for Purdue's modest estimate of 1/4 the lines per mm of the film maker? But this thread is not about comparing equal sized sensors--film vs digital it is stressing that you have the latitude to go to any size and resolution with a sheet of film but are restricted by cost to the 35mm double frame sized sensors with digital.
But that maybe all that is self evident like your remark about the need of a quality lens?-----ew

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Because the film scanner has the same technological limitations as a digital camera’s sensor. Of course, if the goal is to scan the film and use the digital output, then the resolution is limited by the scanner (and then by the display/printer).

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

The scanner doesn't have the same limitation. The digital sensor is a single all in one capture while the scan is progressive. There was never any real point in scanning 35mm film at resolutions much above 4000 ppi because that was more than enough to record all the information in the film.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

I have a V700 scanner with a double pass for film of high res up to 8x10s. Although all these offshoot topics are good---such as "size for size" comparisons, that was not the original intent of this thread. It was about large format film vs digital sensor technology for the average photographer. And not about 24bit ADC current which to my knowledge has not yet been applied to cameras?----ew

Hip Coyote

I must be a total goober. While you are all comparing the sizes of your, eh, er, um, telephoto lenses (if you get the drift) I use a micro 43 camera and seem to get some pretty good shots now and then. Perhaps our film shooting (new to UHH) friend will display some of his work. Although I am not a pixel peeper (who can be using an m43 camera...our crappy little images are full of noise), I've always wanted to see what very large images look like on my computer display. I simply cannot get interested in such a very large camera, the process of carrying it around, tripods, film developing (having had my little black and white (in a closet) darkroom years ago.


The one thing I go back to during these discussions, is which photo do you think will be cherished, looked at over and over again, and saved for generations? A perfect shot of El Cap in Yosemite or a fuzzy shot taken at Christmas of grandparents who are gone in a few months? Large format, large film, small format, m43, a brownie, are simply tools. IQ matters, but content is still king.

So lets see the end product of such a large negative! It will be interesting to me to see something of that size / resolution and get educated a bit more. I just might be inclined to convert.

Happy shooting and Happy New Year.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

What you mean to say is that dynamic range is not the same as "LATITUDE." But likely if the gray scales are equal, you will not find 3 stops difference in latitude?-----ew P.S. The ADC bit depth would be related to the claimed ISO sensitivity---which is irrelevant to this discussion as well as the graphic by Purdue?----ew

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Buy a book by or about Ansel Adams or the portrait photographer Karsh of Ottawa if you demand to see large format output as you say above. I said I have a dozen digitals including an excellent 4/3 Olympus Pen----each for it's own purpose. But if here today would not be used by Adams or Karsh---I guarantee that.-----ew

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Again bigger wins out. If the scanner resolution is limited---scanning an 8x10 will give more image data than scanning 35mm.-----ew

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

Since this thread has been largely off topic---I will mention I have what amounts to the ultimate film copy machine. A 16x20 in Photostat with an Eastman Precision 18.5 in perfect anastigmat. It remains needle sharp from edge to edge for copying the smallest of details. So maybe some of you geniuses can calculate what all that means and try to tell me that you can piece together fifty digital scans with some software from the robbers Adobe?-----ew

Hip Coyote

The Pen is a great camera! I don't demand anything...just asking to see how it all looks to get a sense of what you are talking about. Participate or not..your choice. The point was to see your output with this gear, not Adams'. Maybe you could convince us! A dozen digitals? Holy smokes, that is a lot of cameras. You buy cameras the way I buy long range fishing gear!

In any event, with some exceptions, this is a friendly discussion forum on camera and photography stuff. Dont get too worked up on what amounts to a hobby for most of us. I invite you to participate in the photo critique forum on uhh...which in my opinion is far more interesting and informative than gear-head talk.

Happy shooting.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

P.S.----Of course you know one cannot appreciate large format resolution on the internet or on UHH and there was a discussion about the limited extent of file size posting here. Not nearly to the resolution of an average consumer digital.----ew