Megapixel Equivalence

cooltouch · Jan 29, 2009

Interesting. I had no idea there were so many different ways to calculate approximate megapixel equivalents of film. I have used the following methodology:

Assumptions:

A very fine grained film, capable of resolving 100 lp/mm
One line pair is equivalent to two pixels

Thus, for a 35mm (36mm x 24mm) slide or negative, we have:

(24mm x 100lp/mm x 2 pixels/lp) x (36mm x 100lp/mm x 2pixels/lp) = 34,560,000 pixel equivalents, or 34.6 megapixels.

In fact, whenever somebody brags to me about their DSLR out-resolving film, I point out to them that it won't, unless it's a 35mp camera.

After reading the other methods folks use to make this determination, well, mine may be off in actuality, but it still usually shuts up the pixel peepers.

Best,

Michael

Nigel · Jan 29, 2009

JBrunner said:
The supreme measure of a photograph isn't expressed in numbers.

Sure it is. How much did you get paid for that photo?

Alan Johnson · Jan 29, 2009

My photomicrograph of the negative of a resolution chart photographed at f8 from the correct distance on 100 T-max film developed in Xtol 1+0 supports the contention that 100 line-pairs/mm is obtainable,even with the relatively inexpensive Canon ef 50 mm f 1.8 used.This corresponds to about 35 m-pixels for 35mm with this film.It may be that more expensive lenses would do better.

Lopaka · Jan 29, 2009

Photo Engineer said:
That is my way of being 100% right and 100% wrong at the same time. What do you say about that?

PE

Pretty well sums it up.
Still a relatively useless discussion. Just as there are many factors that can affect the amount of useful information that can be recorded on film, not all megapixels are created equal. Even the definition of useful is open to discussion.

Bob

Photo Engineer · Jan 29, 2009

Bob;

The fact that people continually confuse resolution with pixels amazes me. They are not related actually. You relate pixels to grain, not sharpness. This is especially true due to the sharpness enhancements done electronically.

Every argument or statement here on resolution charts etc.. are totally divorced from the OP and from the megapixel argument. Pixels = grain is a better analogy, in fact, the only one.

PE

Alan Johnson · Jan 29, 2009

In theory there are a great number of reasons why line-pairs/mm cannot be equated to pixels.But these days some of us use both film and DSLR, in my case I need a reason not to upgrade the thing.
If there is a better guide to the relative performance of the two sytems, what is it?

Andy K · Jan 29, 2009

Alan Johnson said:
If there is a better guide to the relative performance of the two sytems, what is it?

The photographs in your hand.

Thomas Bertilsson · Jan 29, 2009

Absolutely agree with Andy. The prints are what matter.

Photo Engineer · Jan 29, 2009

Can't argue with Andy! I would love to, but I can't in this case.

PE

Alan Johnson · Jan 29, 2009

That is a theoretical answer. In practice there are few of the new generation DSLRs about and one would need to make extensive enquiries to find a large print from said camera to compare.

SilverGlow · Jan 29, 2009

sanking said:
I don't think they like us to compare film to digital on this forum, except maybe in the Lounge or Soapbox.

Sandy King

...and only if film comes on top...

Steve Smith · Jan 29, 2009

Andy K said:
The photographs in your hand.

That beats any techno-babble that's ever been written/spoken on the subject!

Steve.

JBrunner · Jan 29, 2009

Alan Johnson said:
That is a theoretical answer. In practice there are few of the new generation DSLRs about and one would need to make extensive enquiries to find a large print from said camera to compare.

Actually, it isn't. It is a practical answer to a complex question. If digital somehow eeks a +23.675 somewhere and that's the reason you decide to shoot it, or even forgo film, great. Nobody will miss you, because it simply doesn't matter what medium you are working in, because you are a gearhead, not a creator. The pedantic notion that one somehow "tops" the other is simply a a giant jerk off for persons looking for easy answers to good taste, or an excuse, or a wheel for their axe.

Do you take a loupe to the gallery? And if you did would it matter? And in answer to Silverglow, no, you are way off base. That isn't at all what APUG is about, but it is a clear reason why threads like this get deleted or sent to the soapbox. It simply generates a bunch of bulge comparing and pixel peeping swagger for those too short sighted to appreciate beauty. A bunch of Tiger dissectors. Film is beautiful. Use for what it is, and what it does. Nobody wonders how many masturbupixels the camera was that made the negative for Pepper #30, or Behind the Gare St. Lazare.

jd callow · Jan 29, 2009

cool.

Alan Johnson · Jan 29, 2009

Sorry,I was wrong,extensive enquiries are not required to find large file images from current DSLRs,there are eg,some at Canon.com, and as Andy said comparisons of prints is the best.I did not realize that such existed,as I normally shoot B/W film.

gr82bart · Jan 29, 2009

Who cares? OK, all you guys in this thread do, but really, who cares?

Regards, Art.

gainer · Jan 29, 2009

The standard human eye resolves 1 arc minute. At 12" viewing distance this angle subtends about 0.0436 mm. Two points at that distance that are separated by less than 0.0436 mm cannot be seen as separate points. Thus an area 0.0436 mm square can be considered a maximum allowable sized pixel in an 8x10 " print. There will be about 28 million of these required to satisfy the standard resolution of the human eye.

RMP-NikonPro · Jan 29, 2009

I would love to see the comparison between 35mm film scanned to 25mpx against the Nikon D3x, might stop this stupidity!

sanking · Jan 29, 2009

Nope, it does not work that way. Which ever side loses a specific battle there is always a fall-back position from which to re-group and live to fight another day. If one sides loses on technical grounds, they will counter with an esthetical argument, and vice-versa. We are in the presence of value believer personality types who will fight to the death.

Sandy King

RMP-NikonPro said:
I would love to see the comparison between 35mm film scanned to 25mpx against the Nikon D3x, might stop this stupidity!

jmooney · Jan 29, 2009

JBrunner said:
Actually, it isn't. It is a practical answer to a complex question. If digital somehow eeks a +23.675 somewhere and that's the reason you decide to shoot it, or even forgo film, great. Nobody will miss you, because it simply doesn't matter what medium you are working in, because you are a gearhead, not a creator. The pedantic notion that one somehow "tops" the other is simply a a giant jerk off for persons looking for easy answers to good taste, or an excuse, or a wheel for their axe.

Do you take a loupe to the gallery? And if you did would it matter? And in answer to Silverglow, no, you are way off base. That isn't at all what APUG is about, but it is a clear reason why threads like this get deleted or sent to the soapbox. It simply generates a bunch of bulge comparing and pixel peeping swagger for those too short sighted to appreciate beauty. A bunch of Tiger dissectors. Film is beautiful. Use for what it is, and what it does. Nobody wonders how many masturbupixels the camera was that made the negative for Pepper #30, or Behind the Gare St. Lazare.

If you only knew how many years and dollars it cost me to figure this out....

Kent10D · Jan 29, 2009

sanking said:
We are in the presence of value believer personality types who will fight to the death.

Yes, but when we do die we do so secure in the knowledge that we go to a land of Kodachrome and T-Max, where the light adjusts to whatever exposure we choose, and pure water flows from the plumbing at a constant 68° F. And every true martyr to the film cause gets seven virgin darkroom assistants who really know how to rock-and-roll, and can make any and all photographic fantasies come true ... as long as they involve film.

RMP-NikonPro · Jan 29, 2009

sanking said:
Nope, it does not work that way. Which ever side loses a specific battle there is always a fall-back position from which to re-group and live to fight another day. If one sides loses on technical grounds, they will counter with an esthetical argument, and vice-versa. We are in the presence of value believer personality types who will fight to the death.

Sandy King

That is so true!! Wise words spoken!

archphoto · Jan 29, 2009

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMP-NikonPro
I would love to see the comparison between 35mm film scanned to 25mpx against the Nikon D3x, might stop this stupidity!

Why not make the comparison yourself on 10 or 12 Mpix ?
I will for shure once I am back in Holland again, early April, just for the fun of it.

Years ago they made a 4x6 m billboard of one of my 4x5 inch pushed slides, it looked good.
Recently somebody made a 2x4 m billboard from a 10Mpix of mine and it looks good

Both systems have earned a place and should not fight each other, each have their strong AND weak points.
Both systems reley on the person that takes the picture and that is most important of all.

Peter

archphoto · Jan 29, 2009

Sorry, double entry

Poisson Du Jour · Jan 29, 2009

RMP-NikonPro said:
I would love to see the comparison between 35mm film scanned to 25mpx against the Nikon D3x, might stop this stupidity!

Who cares what the D3x is or can do?
Really, this whole subject is so droll.

Megapixel Equivalence

cooltouch

Nigel

Alan Johnson

Attachments

Lopaka

Photo Engineer

Alan Johnson

Andy K

Thomas Bertilsson

Photo Engineer

Alan Johnson

SilverGlow

Steve Smith

JBrunner

Moderator

jd callow

Moderator

Alan Johnson

gr82bart

gainer

RMP-NikonPro

sanking

jmooney

Kent10D

RMP-NikonPro

archphoto

archphoto

Poisson Du Jour

Megapixel Equivalence

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency