Full resolution of film!

Is it true in order to get the full resolution of the highest grain film, one must have a lens capable of allowing this? So maybe a Leica 50mm f/2 APO ASPH should be the type of lens needed to get all the resolution from film…!

Resolution is always the product of (optics resolution delivery) * (sensor/film capture resolution) and limited by the one with the least resolution.

Nikon 2 said:

Is it true in order to get the full resolution of the highest grain film, one must have a lens capable of allowing this? So maybe a Leica 50mm f/2 APO ASPH should be the type of lens needed to get all the resolution from film…!

Click to expand...

Yes, a Leica 50mm f/2 APO brings out the detail in Delta 3200 beautifully, you can see every grain.

It's a moot point whichever lens or film combination is used, very few people go all the way to get full resolution in 35mm. Ask somebody who is lauding how sharp their new lens is if they used a tripod and they'll usually say 'of course not', and when the APO was released I remember examples of it's 'sharpness' on film were shown taken from a speeding boat. Very, very few APO users will use it to attain maximum resolution on film because it's a law of diminishing returns, and they want to pixel peep with it anyway.

I'm still waiting for that lens that will point itself at something meaningful and compose the frame in a complementary way.

Until that arrives, I try not to worry about sharpness too much, and focus more on trying to compensate the deficiencies of the optics as alluded to above as well as I can.

I must question the necessity of this "full resolution", because the film either gets scanned, or gets printed. If scanned, in order to carry out the maximum resolution, one would need a humongous drum scanner. If printed, one would need a wallpaper-sized enlargement.

Any 35 mm "high resolution" is laughable for medium format shooters and any 120 format "high resolution" is laughable for large format shooter. There's always a better one out there.

Of course knowing that "I have the lens with super resolution" is probably good for certain level of peace of mind, but then again, how many times one will recreate the laboratory conditions necessary for attaining this over-the-top resolution? In such case, it is similar to owning a supercar, whose speed will be constantly limited with poorly paved roads, bad fuel or other hindering factors.

M-88 said:

I must question the necessity of this "full resolution", because the film either gets scanned, or gets printed. If scanned, in order to carry out the maximum resolution, one would need a humongous drum scanner. If printed, one would need a wallpaper-sized enlargement.

Any 35 mm "high resolution" is laughable for medium format shooters and any 120 format "high resolution" is laughable for large format shooter. There's always a better one out there.

Of course knowing that "I have the lens with super resolution" is probably good for certain level of peace of mind, but then again, how many times one will recreate the laboratory conditions necessary for attaining this over-the-top resolution? In such case, it is similar to owning a supercar, whose speed will be constantly limited with poorly paved roads, bad fuel or other hindering factors.

Click to expand...

I use Bluemoon labs that print using the optical method not with any digital scanning…!

Nikon 2 said:

I use Bluemoon labs that print using the optical method not with any digital scanning…!

Click to expand...

Given this, and the smallish prints they're limited to with their machines, there's no chance you're ever going to benefit from the optimal resolution 35mm has to offer in films like Ektar or Portra 160.

Anyway, the whole is a little backwards, IMO. There are roughly two lines of reasoning when it comes to resolution.

The first is the rational one, in which you start by determining the requirements of the output/presentation medium. Say, the size of the final print and the viewing distance, or the projection size and viewing distance. This you can translate into a required resolution on the input side. In case of high resolution requirements (let's say upwards of 20 megapixels in digital equivalent terms or so), the easiest way to get there is to either shoot an appropriate digital format, or go up in film size through medium to large format if needs be. Only if there's some kind of restriction on film size that limits all options down to 35mm (which should be a "back to the drawing board" red flag in itself!), would one start to attempt to eek out the last drop of resolution from the compromised medium by selecting only top-notch lenses, shooting them at their sweet spot (sacrificing depth of field, which may be the whole reason to stick with a small format anyway) and of course appropriate film selection (let's say TMX for B&W or Ektar for color).

So in this process, there's not a lot of emphasis on the use of a particular lens for its resolution and in fact, it's kind of a last resort to compromise your way out of a suboptimal situation.

The second approach is to depart from the technology that's available and using that for its own sake. For instance, shooting 35mm with a Nikon camera just because you like how it feels and it makes you happy. In this case, whatever resolution the system gives you is just a logical consequences of the technical restrictions that constitute the whole process. Naturally, this final resolution will be of secondary importance and whatever print or projection size is possible, is just a matter of selecting what the image quality provides for.

Again, in this process, there's no emphasis on the quality of the optics in resolution terms, and other rationales such as how pleasurable it is to carry around and use come into play.

So in my mind, the point of departure of the thread doesn't add up in any way.

Except one, of course: bragging rights. Of course, anything with a red dot on it will make a difference in this sense. But even in this case, the whole resolution story is a sideshow. Which it is anyway in photographic terms.

wiltw said:

Resolution is always the product of (optics resolution delivery) * (sensor/film capture resolution) and limited by the one with the least resolution.

Click to expand...

I’m assuming those “vintage” Nikkor lenses can not reveal the full resolution that film is capable of.
So after all the years of the film camera we are just realizing how good film is?
Same with vinyl records. The advancements in turntables and cartridges are finally beginning to bring out what’s imbedded in those groves…!

wiltw said:

Resolution is always the product of (optics resolution delivery) * (sensor/film capture resolution) and limited by the one with the least resolution.

Click to expand...

My poor Nikkor lenses aren’t close to those rich Leica lenses in resolving film to the fullest…!

250swb said:

Yes, a Leica 50mm f/2 APO brings out the detail in Delta 3200 beautifully, you can see every grain.

It's a moot point whichever lens or film combination is used, very few people go all the way to get full resolution in 35mm. Ask somebody who is lauding how sharp their new lens is if they used a tripod and they'll usually say 'of course not', and when the APO was released I remember examples of it's 'sharpness' on film were shown taken from a speeding boat. Very, very few APO users will use it to attain maximum resolution on film because it's a law of diminishing returns, and they want to pixel peep with it anyway.

Click to expand...

Is sharpness the same as full resolution…?

IMO the best data on Photrio regarding the resolution of films is that provided by Henning Serger, eg:

Quite a few lenses will out perform 100 T-Max and the very best would require the use of something like Adox CMS 20 Microfilm to give maximum resolution. However the output resolution will likely be limited by a scanner to about 80 lppm . You have to be a really skilled printer to get 80 lppm on the negative onto silver gelatin paper IMO.

Nikon 2 said:

Same with vinyl records. The advancements in turntables and cartridges are finally beginning to bring out what’s imbedded in those groves…!

Click to expand...

When it comes to optics, be careful with this kind of smoke and mirrors. The smoke tends to deposit onto the mirrors, and that harms resolution.

koraks said:

Given this, and the smallish prints they're limited to with their machines, there's no chance you're ever going to benefit from the optimal resolution 35mm has to offer in films like Ektar or Portra 160.

Click to expand...

I use Ektar 100. So using the optical method has no benefit than scanning in smaller prints…?

koraks said:

When it comes to optics, be careful with this kind of smoke and mirrors. The smoke tends to deposit onto the mirrors, and that harms resolution.

Click to expand...

🫢

...nothing to worry. Just put that camera on a tripod, expose, develop and print. Just one print a day...

Nikon 2 said:

I use Ektar 100. So using the optical method has no benefit than scanning in smaller prints…?

Click to expand...

None whatsoever.

Alan Johnson said:

IMO the best data on Photrio regarding the resolution of films is that provided by Henning Serger, eg:

Rollei RPX 25: Grain and Resolution

Hi All, I am curious about the grain and resolution characteristics of Rollei RPX 25. Anyone have any experience or knowledge about this film as it pertains to it's grain and resolving power? How would it compare to TMax 100 or Across 100?

www.photrio.com

Quite a few lenses will out perform 100 T-Max and the very best would require the use of something like Adox CMS 20 Microfilm to give maximum resolution. However the output resolution will likely be limited by a scanner to about 80 lppm . You have to be a really skilled printer to get 80 lppm onto silver gelatin paper IMO.

Click to expand...

Nikon 2 said:

I use Bluemoon labs that print using the optical method not with any digital scanning…!

Click to expand...

We're talking about theoretical resolution of approximately 150 lpmm (lines per millimetre) in case of Pan f 50 or Velvia 50 and 200 lpmm for Tmax 100. If you somehow manage to attain maximum resolution, using a high resolution film and a high resolution lens, then print this image on 12x18 inch paper, 1 millimetre of horizontal length of a negative will translate into approximately 17 mm. And that 17 mm will hold 150 "lines" of above mentioned resolution. This means 8.8 "lines" per each millimetre of enlarged print. In other words, you're still gonna need a pretty strong magnifying glass to see the resolution limit of paper. On 12x18 print.

If you specifically need/want a reason to justify spending exorbitant amount of money for German lenses .... well, you don't really need a reason, just go for it. Or even better - buy a medium format camera which will effectively outperform anything in 35 mm class. Even that 50 mm f/2 Apo-Papo magic-bullet lens.

Besides a tripod, you would also need to lock up your mirror to have any chance of seeing the potential of either lens or film. But before you get to that point, you also have to balance shutter speed and subject movement, depth of field and diffraction, and film speed with graininess. Not to mention practicality.

If you love your Nikon system, enjoy it and stop worrying. The grass may look greener through other lenses, but that’s a distraction.

Henning wrote about this elsewhere.
It’s not true.
Few things scale linearly.
A bigger format does not necessarily always perform better WRT resolution. And whether it’s handheld or not matter hugely. And depth of field of course too, with overall impression of resolution.

Helge said:

A bigger format does not necessarily always perform better WRT resolution.

Click to expand...

Of course not. There are plenty of ways to make a crappy medium format negative that doesn't compare to a more optimally produced 35mm negative. But fact of the matter is that when it comes to film, if more resolution is required, stepping up in format has always been one of the first things to do, because it's generally darn effective. Had this not been the case, 4x5" wouldn't have survived as long as it did in the professional domain.

I mean, this is one of those things where we can argue about the details in the margins as long as we'd like, but it's not going to change the larger scheme of things.

And as said before - the whole thing is putting the cart before the horse anyway.

koraks said:

Of course not. There are plenty of ways to make a crappy medium format negative that doesn't compare to a more optimally produced 35mm negative. But fact of the matter is that when it comes to film, if more resolution is required, stepping up in format has always been one of the first things to do, because it's generally darn effective. Had this not been the case, 4x5" wouldn't have survived as long as it did in the professional domain.

I mean, this is one of those things where we can argue about the details in the margins as long as we'd like, but it's not going to change the larger scheme of things.

And as said before - the whole thing is putting the cart before the horse anyway.

Click to expand...

Sometimes in the real world larger formats are impossible.
If you need a long lens, and don’t want the drag out Big Bertha to get an 8° field of view, then 135 is the way.
If you need a speedy lens... 135!
More DoF for a given FoV? Also 135.
And many more examples.

Like I said - we can debate the margins/eventualities of this cart-before-the-horse situation until hell freezes over. I don't see merit in doing so.

koraks said:

Like I said - we can debate the margins/eventualities of this cart-before-the-horse situation until hell freezes over. I don't see merit in doing so.

Click to expand...

Exactly. There is a reason all formats have been in regular use and continue to find fans.

koraks said:

Nikon 2 said:

I use Ektar 100. So using the optical method has no benefit than scanning in smaller prints…?

Click to expand...

None whatsoever.

Click to expand...

One advantage of optical printing vs scanning is you are less likely to get all the artifacts from bad scanning. Of course you lose out on all the benefits of good scanning. But scanning certainly adds an extra step that could lead to resolution loss, color shifts and crap sharpening artifacts. There is a surprising amount of bad scanning out there.