1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What is 35mm worth in MegaPixels

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by alexham36, Sep 8, 2005.

  1. farley

    farley Active Member

    The average photographer - me, for example - would never dream of duplicating negatives, and each one is vitally important, because I never throw any out. I am careful about making back up copies of digital images, to CD. I also make back ups of the back ups and store many files on online albums. I don't think you can say that you can't put into a digital image what isn't there already - cameras that interpolate do this with great success at the moment!
     
  2. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    As for loosing negs that shouldn't be a problem if you have already scaned them, althoughtthis is time consuming and I wouln't be able to do any prints under an enlarger :(
    You Don't have to have a scanner, there is always the Darkroom.

    No we are to close to the limit of what a lens can deliver to the sensor now, Digital compacts did this years ago but companies obviously thought that P&S photographers need more noise to they aded more pixels anyway. :D

    Remember the Andy Sommers (formaly of The Police) Interview, He said he may concider digital when it gets to 50 or 100 Megapixels and he used a Leica Loaded with Ilford Delta 3200!!!

    Those pics were the best I have ever seen from that film, proes how good it can be when it is developed Properely and/or Profesionally, like he does. Look on Pbase to see some really Harsh grain from that film, My guess is that it is a very hard film to develope right?
     
  3. Woolliscroft

    Woolliscroft Well-Known Member

    Interpolation doesn't add data, it just stretches out what there is so that you can print bigger without pixelation. Data not recorded stays unrecorded no matter what you do to the image.
     
  4. farley

    farley Active Member

    Hmmm. But 'stretching out' is something that 'wasn't there before'. I would say turning a 6mp image into a 12mp image is definitely 'adding' something. *Gets calculator*. I make it 6mps extra that weren't there before. So, from 'somewhere', 6 million EXTRA pixels have been 'added' that were not there before.
     
  5. 0

    0 Guest

    Yes, the pixels weren't there before, but the image they're showing was. There's no extra detail that wasn't there before.
     
  6. ncmoody

    ncmoody Well-Known Member

    When I lost my negs there were no scanners !
    I dont have a darkroom thats why I have embraced digital
     
  7. farley

    farley Active Member

    Yes, I agree; however, the argument was that 'nothing is added' whereas, pixels have definitely been added. It's probably pedantic, but nevertheless it does illustrate that digital technology can add what was not there before.
     
  8. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    "When I lost my negs there were no scanners !" True but also there were no digital cameras or at least non that were anygood.



    "I dont have a darkroom thats why I have embraced digital"

    Fair enough, I was just saying that you don't have to have a scanner.

    And as for interpolation, YOu can ad detail if it isn't there.
     
  9. ncmoody

    ncmoody Well-Known Member

    This is becoming pointless, are you being deliberatly antagonistic ?
     
  10. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    MODERATOR'S NOTE:

    Pointless it has become indeed - I think everyone's had their say. If there are any sensible points to debate, please start another thread. I won't lock this one yet, just in case someone has something new to offer - but please, no more digi/trad tennis.
     
  11. 0

    0 Guest

    He's being no more antagonistic than you are, Neill. Why can't you accept people having a different point of view to yours without implying they're wrong?
     
  12. ncmoody

    ncmoody Well-Known Member

    I think you need to read the moderators note above
     
  13. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Interpolation is a form of educated guess work. If you have two values, on a graph say, you could join them with a line. any point on that line would be a guess as to the true value as the correct line between the point could be straight or curved. Same with digital photos, each pixel is a point and the software uses a number of points to guess the curve nad then add other points (Pixels) to enlarge the image.
     
  14. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    before I get flamed it should read "And as for interpolation, YOu can't ad detail if it isn't there.
     
  15. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I think I agree with Nick, we are so far off the point that it isn't even visible.

    Another round please barman!!
     
  16. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    Away from the Digital Vs Film Debate, I was recently told that Res of the mostly Discontinued ISO 25 film is still noticeable compared to that of modern 100 ISO film. I thought it was ISO 100 film now has caught up to where ISO 25 film used to be and has reaslolution greater than any lens (except possible in a rangefinder) can give, and that is why the ISO 25 and now 50 Has been discontinued.
    If it is the case and the 25 ISO stuff has Noticably greater res, then Why does no one make it anymore?
     
  17. All this "ping pong" misses the main point that - at this point of time the price of film SLRS and DSLRs is still diverging. Though DSLRs have come down, film cameras just keep on falling.

    Just look at what you can get - say the Nikon D50 is on a par with a F80. One is £550 the other is around £60!

    Its full frame then, you can use your existing optics and it still gives a more "enlargeable" negative - if we take it as read they are equal up to 10 X 8

    So what are you paying for? Picture preview and ability to delete. I think I can wait for a day if it means saving £500 quid! Agreed there is the cost of film & development, but films are now pretty cheap. However if you have your digi pics printed, then the cost differential narrows very considerably.

    I bet Mr or Mrs Average would be hard pushed to rack up a £500 bill (over digi costs) in ten years!
     
  18. AJUK

    AJUK Well-Known Member

    :O where can you get an F80 for £60, I have been looking for one of them!

    "However if you have your digi pics printed, then the cost differential narrows very considerably. " yes I noticed that.
     
  19. TimF

    TimF With as stony a stare as ever Lord Reith could hav

    Probably because the majority now uses slow zoom lenses (as well as the improvements in higher speed film quality of course). I wish K25 was still around, as it would definitely be my slide film of preference.
     
  20. snapperlondon

    snapperlondon Well-Known Member

    Konica Minolta describe the 'Scan Elite 5400 II' as scanning at 5400ppi, producing 42,200,000 pixels, the equivalent to a 42.2 megapixel camera. As their team of designers and engineers have produced such a good scanner I think I'll just trust their figures!

    But I have one question? Can someone explain the point of this thread? Why are the digital lot always trying to discredit film and the film lot always trying to discredit digital? The ideal is surely to use the camera that gives you the end result that you want!

    Incidentally, I work with a lot of professional photographers and some use just digital, some just film (and in one case, only BW film!), but the majority use BOTH!

    I know a very successful documentary photographer who shoots digital, except if the work is likely to be exhibited, then he shoots on a very old Hasselbald and has the negs (yes neg, not trannie) scanned on an Imacon Flextight! Another very well-known landscape photographer shoots 5x4 neg and has it scanned because he doesn't think digital can give him what he wants (yet)!

    I also read an interview with a stills photographer (sorry I can't remember his name, but can look it up if it is important to anyone) who shoots for a major studio (Miramax, I think) and they INSIST that he shoots film, which is then scanned...they are concerned about the long term storage of digital files and want the neg as a back-up!

    So, use the camera that gives you the end result you want...the final image SHOULD be the most important thing.

    And, if you shoot film you can have the best of both worlds, you have your neg to scan then store away and a digital file too!
     

Share This Page