> Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 14:07:50 -0700 > From: "DelRosario, Tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: EOS Ohhh c'mon Skip, be real! Scanning film > > The original question was "So at what megapixel will it take > to equal or surpass a 35mm 100 ASA film speed grain?"
Approximately 12 Megapixels, that is. The problem has many facets, and there are two levels of information captured from film. One is the pure image information, the other ist the film structure. Due to a number of optical limitations in most lenses, the *image* information captured on film is approximately 12 Megapixels equivalent. However, scanning that one needs a much higher resolution in a scanner in order not to lose information while scanning. The next issue is dynamic range, where digital systems excel, and analog systems have to struggle a lot. Hybrid (drum scans) systems are coping quite well with a small advantage on the digital side. Pure analog systems are lost on this. Another question is the nature of the subject. Repetitive small patterns of high frequencies like small check fabrics, technical grid structures and similar are often rendered less than optimal on digital, while the natural random grain of analog film avoids moire on this. Biological structures like faces and portraits however are much better captured on digital. So: One has to be careful to avoid moire in technical images, but if this can be handled, the image from a D60 is very close to what you can achieve from the best drum scan from film, and certainly better than analog enlarged prints on paper. Resolution, that is. The D60 shows dramatically the difference in the quality of my lenses, while this never has been an issue with film before. Yes, the chip is smaller, which makes up for film a little. Looking at the dynamic range and the endless technical and creative possibilities of white balance, the winner is clearly the D60 over any 35 mm film system, provided that one can live with the limitations in wide angle. > Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 16:03:35 -0700 > From: Chip Louie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: EOS Scanning film > > But you claimed that digital cameras had caught up to or had > surpassed film in image quality. Relative to the sensor area in comparison to film - yes. No doubt about this. Compare theoutput from a D60 to a piece of film cropped to the size of the D60 sensor, the D60 wins single handed. > Obviously if the output of a scanned film original looks > better than a similarly outputted image originating from > a digital camera, Only with very good drum scans on high end systems, and only from film formats (much) larger than the respective sensors sizes. Given a sensor full frame 35 mm with the same area resolution of that from the D60, you would render approximately an image of 12 Megapixels, which would be far superior to film, both in resolution as well as in dynamic range. > It has been my own experience that drum scanned 35mm film > can easily beat digital originals no matter how you resize > the digital files. That depends very much on the camera used and the size of the compared film. If you have seen the output from the 16.8 Megapixel Foveon prototype (b/w), you wouldn't say that so easily. Output to paper 42 inches wide and approximately ten feet high, this was a stunning proof of the fact that film is dying. I would not bet a dime that anyone could rival that with large format. Up o 4x5" the amount of information captured on film increases with film format. Above that, it actually decreases due to problems in flattening film, vibration, mechanical tolerances and many other factors. So, the best possible result in resolution of *image* information is 4x5" (yes, tonal continuity and film grain are separate issues). Digital files from scanbacks are already far superior to that, one shot systems close up very fast. > I have no doubt that I and MANY others shooting film will > go more digital I completely switched already. > stated before, 12MP should be enough to get acceptable > results with good quality output from a LightJet), Not only acceptable, but superior to film. 35 mm, that is. > but not for reasons of image quality, for > economic reasons. 80% of my work with the D60 could not be done in equal quality with conventional film. Yes, quality is an issue. -- Michael Quack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
