110 film and it's approximate megapixel count

Ces1um · Jul 28, 2018

So I've heard comparisons between 35mm cameras and 20-ish megapixel "full frame" sensors. I've heard medium format film is roughly approximate to 60-ish megapixels. Anybody want to hazard a guess what the approximate megapixel equivalent of 110 film would be?

slackercrurster · Jul 28, 2018

If you are talking about negative film, all are completely wrong. 35mm = about 3 or 4 mp on a PS cam. Very low res stuff. I've done extensive testing on it. Just no chrome tests.

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

removed account4 · Jul 28, 2018

35mm is 4x 110 ..
s0 ...

Lee Rust · Jul 28, 2018

slackercrurster said:
If you are talking about negative film, all are completely wrong. 35mm = about 3 or 4 mp on a PS cam. Very low res stuff. I've done extensive testing on it. Just no chrome tests.

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

You're right... under most conditions, 35mm film does not compare favorably with even 6mp digital because our technical expectations have been raised so far beyond where they were back in the days of drug-store snapshots and 8x10 enlargements. There's more to photography than resolution, though. It's interesting how many post-processing effects are available to superimpose film-like texture, blur and other anomalies onto digital images that are increasingly 'perfect'.

As far as digital cameras that are actually enjoyable to hold and use, the R-D1 is one fine example. I certainly have a lot of fun using mine. On the other hand, I've never once been tempted to pick up my old Minolta 110 film camera.

Meanwhile, your sample photos would indicate that you hang out with a very interesting crowd.

benveniste · Jul 28, 2018

Ces1um said:
So I've heard comparisons between 35mm cameras and 20-ish megapixel "full frame" sensors. I've heard medium format film is roughly approximate to 60-ish megapixels. Anybody want to hazard a guess what the approximate megapixel equivalent of 110 film would be?

If you could resolve 50 lp/mm with acceptable contrast, it would work out to around 2.2 megapixels. That was probably doable in good light with a film like Gold 100 and the Pentax 110 primes, subject to the whims of film flatness. But with the 200 speed film that I stored away, there's noticeable "grain" even in 850x650 scans.

darkosaric · Jul 28, 2018

slackercrurster said:
If you are talking about negative film, all are completely wrong. 35mm = about 3 or 4 mp on a PS cam. Very low res stuff. I've done extensive testing on it. Just no chrome tests.

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

The problem with those comparisons are that not many have good equipment in every step of the procedure to get the maximum from 35mm film. I know it is B&W, not color - but for example when Adox is testing CMS20 film, you get 500 Mpixels:

https://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-films-2/cms-20-ii-adotech-ii/

Here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums...get-best-digital-performance-35mm-film-2.html

people are talking (and proving) about ~20megapixels from 35mm films. And none of those used best scanner available.

flavio81 · Jul 28, 2018

Lee Rust said:
You're right... under most conditions, 35mm film does not compare favorably with even 6mp digital .

Maybe when scanning on a mediocre scanner like ALL flatbed scanners, which would struggle bringing out more than 6MP from a 35mm frame. It is embarrasing to see the comparison between them and, for example, scanning done with a DSLR and a macro lens.

I've seen other tests with provia 100F slide film and dedicated scanners and it was at least 24 honest megapixels. B/W film would do much better than that.

I have a 11x14" portrait of my wife done with Delta 100 film, it is absolutely sharp, and even reveals more detail if using a loupe. A digital print looking non-pixellated to the naked eye would require 300dpi. 300*11*300*14= about 14 megapixels. This print is already exceeding it.

faberryman · Jul 28, 2018

Theory aside, the prints I make from my phone easily exceed the quality of the 110 prints I have from back in the day.

darkosaric · Jul 28, 2018

With 110 also the problem is that most of the cameras have very bad lenses, bad tolerance for film flattens, shutter speed and so on. If you want to get maximum from 110 films - you need to input more work than when working with 35mm film.
I had better results from Kiev 30 spy camera than with 110 film cameras (negative size is the same).

flavio81 · Jul 28, 2018

faberryman said:
Theory aside, the prints I make from my phone easily exceed the quality of the 110 prints I have from back in the day.

It depends on the quality of lens, film, film flatness, focus accuracy, enlarging lens, enlarging carrier, focus accuracy at enlarging and paper flatness.

On my example above (with 35mm film) it was a Nikon F3 with a 200/4 lens (a very sharp nikkor), printed using a Durst M670 using a Nikon 50/2.8 enlarging lens, which is a very good lens (there are even better lenses, though), focused using a grain focuser.

MattKing · Jul 28, 2018

I've seen an extraordinarily good, very large (30"x40"?) optical enlargement from a disc negative - it was prepared for the retirement party of a Canadian Kodak employee who retired just a few months short of his 50th anniversary with the company. Disc film and cameras were current at the time.
It required just about every trick (masking and ??) that Eastman Kodak had available in their Rochester labs, but it wasn't fake or the result of any interpolation.
I expect it involved some of the approach that was used for the Colorama photos from 35mm that were displayed in New York's Grand Central station.
The problem with any of there "how many megapixel" questions is that they require you to take the output from one process and procedure, convert it to the output of another process and procedure, and then evaluate the resulting conversion in relation to the normal, native output from the latter process and procedure. The conversion steps are critical, and inevitably distort the comparison.
If you are going to be printing digitally, then it is relatively tough (but still possible) to achieve high quality from small film. If you are going to be printing optically, it is relatively easy to achieve high quality.
It is, however, also relatively easy to end up with lousy results - film or digital it doesn't matter - if your technique and equipment are lousy.
I don't often print both optically from a negative and print digitally from the same negative. When I have done that though, the results tend to be more different in qualities than different in relative quality.
One thing I am sure of though - anyone who can only extract the same quality from a 35mm negative as they can from a 4 megapixel sensor either is lousy with film, or lousy with digitizing film, or has a really lousy testing methodology.

MattKing · Jul 28, 2018

faberryman said:
Theory aside, the prints I make from my phone easily exceed the quality of the 110 prints I have from back in the day.

flavio81 said:
It depends on the quality of lens, film, film flatness, focus accuracy, enlarging lens, enlarging carrier, focus accuracy at enlarging and paper flatness.

On my example above (with 35mm film) it was a Nikon F3 with a 200/4 lens (a very sharp nikkor), printed using a Durst M670 using a Nikon 50/2.8 enlarging lens, which is a very good lens (there are even better lenses, though), focused using a grain focuser.

My guess is that the 110 prints from "back in the day" came from a lab.
I've seen really nice custom enlargements from 110, but agree that the standard mini-lab prints from 110 were incredibly inconsistent.
I think, as well, that the stabilization functions included in a lot of phones make a tremendous difference - a lot of people had a lot of trouble holding a lot of 110 cameras still when they took photos.

Prof_Pixel · Jul 28, 2018

If I remember correctly, when Kodak was developing the Photo CD Standard, they looked at the total systems performance (film, camera lens, camera shake, camera focus, optical print system performance, etc.) to determine what the 35 mm neg/pos system could produce and decided that about 2048 x 3072 (6.291 Mpx) was it for most consumer images.. This was called 16 Base. A higher resolution (64 Base) was available on Pro Photo CD Discs (4096 x 6144 (25.166 Mpx)).

If 110 is 1/4 the area of a 35 mm frame, all other things being equivalent, a 110 image could be about 1024 x 1536 (1.573 Mpx).

flavio81 · Jul 28, 2018

Prof_Pixel said:
If I remember correctly, when Kodak was developing the Photo CD Standard, they looked at the total systems performance (film, camera lens, camera shake, camera focus, optical print system performance, etc.) to determine what the 35 mm neg/pos system could produce and decided that about 2048 x 3072 (6.291 Mpx) was it for most consumer images.. This was called 16 Base. A higher resolution (64 Base) was available on Pro Photo CD Discs (4096 x 6144 (25.166 Mpx)).

Let me add an oblugatory reminder: a 12MP digital camera will give about 6MP of real image detail/information, due to bayer sensor demosaicing, etc. So the 6.2Mpix Kodak figure makes them comparable with a 12MP digital camera.

Frank53 · Jul 28, 2018

slackercrurster said:
If you are talking about negative film, all are completely wrong. 35mm = about 3 or 4 mp on a PS cam. Very low res stuff. I've done extensive testing on it. Just no chrome tests.

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

Maybe I missed something, but how were the m6 pictures digitized?
Regards,
Frank

lantau · Jul 28, 2018

flavio81 said:
Let me add an oblugatory reminder: a 12MP digital camera will give about 6MP of real image detail/information, due to bayer sensor demosaicing, etc. So the 6.2Mpix Kodak figure makes them comparable with a 12MP digital camera.

Aren't the megapixels stated in camera descriptions already the effective number? The number of sensor sites on the chip should be quite a bit higher than 24million on a 24mp sensor.

It's been years since I saw the word 'effective' used. It's probably been simplified because of established convention.

faberryman · Jul 28, 2018

flavio81 said:
It depends on the quality of lens, film, film flatness, focus accuracy, enlarging lens, enlarging carrier, focus accuracy at enlarging and paper flatness.

Of course, the whole system matters. Which is why I said theory aside. The quality of 110 was always substandard. I have never heard anyone regret its demise. Nor the disc camera either.

Dismayed · Jul 28, 2018

slackercrurster said:
If you are talking about negative film, all are completely wrong. 35mm = about 3 or 4 mp on a PS cam. Very low res stuff. I've done extensive testing on it. Just no chrome tests.

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

Your film scans look oddly soft, as if they were done with a cheap consumer flatbed.

Dismayed · Jul 28, 2018

jnanian said:
35mm is 4x 110 ..
s0 ...

Yes, 35mm has about 4x the area of 110 film. So if 35mm film were the equivalent of 24 MP, then 110 would be about 6 MP, assuming comparable lens quality and film flatness.

jbrubaker · Jul 28, 2018

slackercrurster said:
If you are talking about negative film, all are completely wrong. 35mm = about 3 or 4 mp on a PS cam. Very low res stuff. I've done extensive testing on it. Just no chrome tests.

http://photographycompared.tumblr.com/

This is just not an accurate statement. 35mm film resolution is dependant on many variables such as quality of camera and lens, type of film/developer and method you use to measure the reaolution. If you are talking about scans from the film then the scanner is usually the weak link. Here an example from my Minox camera (8x11mm) which is only a fraction the size of 35mm. It's less than half the frame size of 110 film. This was a test shot on Rollei ATP film and digitized using my Sigma SD quattro camera with macro lens.

Sirius Glass · Jul 28, 2018

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ....................

removed account4 · Jul 28, 2018

Dismayed said:
Yes, 35mm has about 4x the area of 110 film. So if 35mm film were the equivalent of 24 MP, then 110 would be about 6 MP, assuming comparable lens quality and film flatness.

LOL exactly !

i never understand these threads. the info is readily available
on wikipEdia who cares what the resolution of film is / might not be
that should be the least of one's worries...

darkosaric · Jul 29, 2018

jbrubaker said:
Here an example from my Minox camera (8x11mm)

Wow!

flavio81 · Jul 29, 2018

lantau said:
Aren't the megapixels stated in camera descriptions already the effective number? The number of sensor sites on the chip should be quite a bit higher than 24million on a 24mp sensor.

No, they aren't.

You buy a 24MP DSLR and it has 24 million sensors, between red, green and blue. No more. The image is produced by demosaicing which gives less resolution. And the anti-alias filter in front will smear details on its own.

I've owned camera without the anti-alias filter, it gives much greater resolution but also opens up the possibility of very ugly, nasty color artifacts.

Cameras like the Sigmas with the foveon sensor have no Bayer mosaic, but the manufacturer exxagerates the pixel count. A sigma camera of, say, true 14MP, is advetised as 42MP: "14+14+14 megapixels" (one for each color). But this one will give true 14MP of detail.

Cholentpot · Jul 29, 2018

6mp for 35mm film?

Really?

This across the board? 25, 80, 100, 125, 160 etc? Color b&w?

110 film and it's approximate megapixel count

Ces1um

slackercrurster

removed account4

Lee Rust

benveniste

darkosaric

flavio81

faberryman

darkosaric

flavio81

MattKing

Moderator

MattKing

Moderator

Prof_Pixel

flavio81

Frank53

lantau

faberryman

Dismayed

Dismayed

jbrubaker

Sirius Glass

removed account4

darkosaric

flavio81

Cholentpot

110 film and it's approximate megapixel count

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency