Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › 35mm Film / Digital
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

35mm Film / Digital - Page 3

post #31 of 56
Film vs. digital and digital vs. vinyl are two completely different things.

Different emulsions have different looks, some have extremely high resolution, and so on. And to those who say film is dead/dieing: Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji have reported that film sales have either stabilized or are increasing.

I use film because it is cheap. I would say I only have one or two frames out of every 36-exposure (really more like 38 in use, lol) roll that I throw out. I usually like the rest, and there are usually a few that I love. I shoot film slowly, maybe a roll or two a mont but I'm sporadic. I take my camera with me everywhere.

If I had a lot of money right now, though, I would get a 5D Mk. II and an Ebony 45SU2.

I'm actually getting a 4x5 camera in the coming months, with some amazing Schneider lenses. Gigapixel images here I come! :P

Edit: ast, you really don't understand anything about film, do you? Each film has a different resolution. Eg. one film I use is technically about 22mp (Velvia 50), another is 40mp, and even another is 50mp and more (old extremely slow B&W emulsions rock). The resolution is limited by the lens, scanner, et al. I doubt most lenses are more than 80lp/mm, whereas most films usually have more res than 110lp/mm. These lenses are the same used for digital, so mind that.
post #32 of 56
Quote:
I remember seeing on the web that 35mm film is equivalent to about 12M pixels in terms of resolution. Mulitple dSLR's have passed that mark. So finding a better dSLR shouldn't be that hard any more.
Find me a DSLR made out of real metal. Or one that works without batteries. Or even one that isn't a PITA to manual focus with. That can take unlimited-length exposures.

The truth is high end DSLRs are giving equivalent or better (but different) IQ most of the time.
But IQ isn't everything. I like my film cameras.
post #33 of 56
Quote:
Find me a DSLR made out of real metal
Grab a nice mid or pro-level DSLR and you've got it; only the consumer bodies are plastic. The Nikon D200/D300/D2*/D3* series are all magnesium alloy bodies.
Quote:
Or one that works without batteries
No SLR with autofocus or exposure metering works without batteries.
post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by trains are bad View Post
Or even one that isn't a PITA to manual focus with.
Any of the full-frame or semi-pro APS-C DSLRs with a split-prism (+/- micro-prism collar) focussing screen.

Quote:
That can take unlimited-length exposures.
Fine. You win. Having digital CCD/CMOSs capture for any extended time results in a ship-load of noise and hot-pixels
post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek View Post
Looks a little noisy to me. The resolution is good, though. Good 35mm film will be equivalent to about twenty megapixels.
It's called grain, and before digital and noise reduction (which as you know, smears fine detail) that's what photographs looked like
post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by OverlordXenu View Post
Edit: ast, you really don't understand anything about film, do you? Each film has a different resolution. Eg. one film I use is technically about 22mp (Velvia 50), another is 40mp, and even another is 50mp and more (old extremely slow B&W emulsions rock). The resolution is limited by the lens, scanner, et al. I doubt most lenses are more than 80lp/mm, whereas most films usually have more res than 110lp/mm. These lenses are the same used for digital, so mind that.
calm down, no need to get emotional here. You are not the owner Kodak film.


Most of regular films have about 12M pixels equivalent resolution, that's what I read. Some high end film may have more. But same applies to high end Digital as well. My pre-ordered 5D mkII has over 21M pixel and it is not even labeled "Professional". Several medium format ones have over 40M or so.


So shooting film is "cheaper"! gimme a break. I don't even want to argue. You can happily shooting films to save money.

ciao
post #37 of 56
Thread Starter 
You're off by half. To match the effective resolution of 35mm film, you would need a 25 megapixel sensor.

See ya
Steve
post #38 of 56
this is a bit old:

post #39 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ast View Post
this is a bit old:

It's relatively accurate (though Tech Pan is much higher resolution than he listed), but something to keep in mind is that digital sensors use bayer interpolation and therefore you don't get full stated resolution. Shooting test charts, a 12MP digital sensor indeed gives you 12MP, but shooting real pictures you need tonality, and here the actual resolution would be significantly less than 12MP. Hence viewing digital images at 100% crop you won't be getting anywhere near per-pixel sharpness. Digital sensors also have anti-aliasing filters (softening filters) which typically reduces resolution by 30%.

I was looking at images from a low ISO 35mm B&W film under a microscope, taken by my Nikon 85mm prime lens at f/2.8, and it recorded 200MP! That means both the film and my prime lens has an even higher true resolution! That graph by Roger Clark used a scanner, and in my experience with a microscope, all the films are about double the sharpness as he listed. Still, in the same ballpark so I say "relatively accurate".

Away from all the resolution talk, film just has a different "look" from digital. So it will always have its niche.
post #40 of 56
Thread Starter 
The megapixel rating on cameras isn't totally accurate. The anti aliasing is the key factor. That reduces effective resolution significantly.

See ya
Steve
post #41 of 56
some day, Digital will COMPLETELY beat file in EVERY aspects. Just give it some time ...






post #42 of 56
That's impossible, because digital will never BE film. Film is film and digital is digital; digital can never be film.
post #43 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by trains are bad View Post
That's impossible, because digital will never BE film. Film is film and digital is digital; digital can never be film.
There's no reason why any color balance or grain of film couldn't be reproduced digitally.
post #44 of 56
It could be reproduced/emulated. But it still wouldn't be film. There is a physicality involved here.


You can also use digital filters to 'vinylize' a digital sound file with filtering. But the digital file would still not be a record. It would be a digital file.

Digital cannot be film, it can only emulate it.
post #45 of 56
Thread Starter 
I don't see any reason why digital couldn't eventually be able to precisely emulate film. But I don't know why you'd want to do that. It would be better to have digital surpass film.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Gear-Fi: Non-Audio Gear and Gadgets › 35mm Film / Digital