Megapixel Equivalence

[RMP-NikonPro]

Peter

I've got that idea in my head,
But as must people keep on harping on about, how super film is and that 35mm is the equivalent to 20-30mpx, just thought the D3x is the tool for the job?
My Poor D3 may be humbled by the experience!!! LOL :munch:

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

OK, dead horse, meet baton.

Now can we close this useless thread? If you really feel like discussing it, you guys all know there will be another one in three months, which will then be closed, and followed by a subsequent one three months later, ad infinitum...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

OK, dead horse, meet baton.

Now can we close this useless thread? If you really feel like discussing it, you guys all know there will be another one in three months, which will then be closed, and followed by a subsequent one three months later, ad infinitum...

Do it.
I thought JBrunner had the final, wonderful say, but no. So, please try not to take so long with the baton march if this garbage crops up again. :rolleyes:

 

[sanking]

Here are a few good sites that study the issue. The studies disagree on some important points so everyone should be able to find some points that validate their belief system.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography


Sandy King

 

[wogster]

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

A better comparison, is to take your 35mm camera and shoot a scene, shoot an identical image on a Nikon D3x (or whatever other digital small format camera you like). Use the same ISO, the same shutter speed, the same aperture. Make a traditional silver 16x20 print from the 35mm image. Take the Digital image and convert to B&W using a similar colour response, crop so that the images are the same size, make a 16x20 ink print. Mount and frame the two prints the same. Mark the back so that you know which is which. Have someone else put them on the wall, so you do not know which is which. Live with the prints for a week, decide which one is the better print, without knowing which is which. You might be surprised at the result, then again you may not be.

Scanning a 35mm film or print means that you really end up comparing the digital capture in a camera to the digital capture in a scanner. Making proper prints means your comparing the print, and in photography the print is what people will see, it's what really matters, isn't it?

 

[JBrunner]

A better comparison, is to take your 35mm camera and shoot a scene, shoot an identical image on a Nikon D3x (or whatever other digital small format camera you like). Use the same ISO, the same shutter speed, the same aperture. Make a traditional silver 16x20 print from the 35mm image. Take the Digital image and convert to B&W using a similar colour response, crop so that the images are the same size, make a 16x20 ink print. Mount and frame the two prints the same. Mark the back so that you know which is which. Have someone else put them on the wall, so you do not know which is which. Live with the prints for a week, decide which one is the better print, without knowing which is which. You might be surprised at the result, then again you may not be.

Scanning a 35mm film or print means that you really end up comparing the digital capture in a camera to the digital capture in a scanner. Making proper prints means your comparing the print, and in photography the print is what people will see, it's what really matters, isn't it?

And what would it prove? That you can ape a silver print?

I've put in an request for a dead horse sub forum....

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There it is. "What?", you might ask.
"The Ignore button", I would reply.
Have fun, guys. I'm sorry, I just don't have the heart to watch dead horses beaten.

 

[wogster]

And what would it prove? That you can ape a silver print?

I've put in an request for a dead horse sub forum....

If you can "ape" a silver print, then obviously the d*****l technology is "good enough" for that level. It may very well be, I expect though that it may be good enough for colour work, but not B&W work, which since we are in the B&W forum, is the important thing.

As for the horse, really it's not just dead, it's decomposed, turned to fertilizer, put back into the meadow, and the grass has fed another generation of horses.

We can drop it now.....

 

[phenix]

Quoting a mentor and friend of mine, who used to say (years ago): “To a wrong question, there is no answer.”

 

[RMP-NikonPro]

It's a Pony!

 

[sanking]

Actually, I thought it was a fair and relevant question from someone who wanted an objective answer. Unfortunately, the answer is very complicated, and not one that that will be allowed on APUG. There are the forum rules, and then there are people who just don't want to talk about digital at all, i.e. whatever the comparison might show they don't want to hear or talk about it.

Go to the hybrid forum, go to the Luminous Landscape forum, go to Rio or Timbuktu, but don't come to APUG expecting a reasonable discussion of digital versus film.


Sandy King

Quoting a mentor and friend of mine, who used to say (years ago): “To a wrong question, there is no answer.”

 

[JBrunner]

Go to the hybrid forum, go to the Luminous Landscape forum, go to Rio or Timbuktu, but don't come to APUG expecting a reasonable discussion of digital versus film.


Sandy King

APUG is simply not the place for such a discussion, reasonable or otherwise. Digital vs Film is dead and buried here. It is decidedly not what APUG is about.