Perez

[Prof_Pixel]

Kodak Film is equivalent to 5000 megapixel camera.

Kodak must write this to everywhere.

Tests at Kodak when the PhotoCD was being developed said that a 35mm image (including the results of the optical system) had about 16 megapixels. This would mean that to get 5000 megapixels, the film image would have to be 19 x 24 inches and the camera optical system would have to have 35mm camera quality.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

I asked at APUG about how many megapixel equivalent to film , people laughed and reported petapixel. I dont know who is right ?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Not only is that factually incorrect, it doesn't matter to most people anyway. They don't print photos. they don't need that kind of resolution.

True, but he's still bigger-picture correct. Smart phone users don't need 41-megapixel cameras either just to post pictures to Facebook, but Nokia just introduced one. Why? To boost sales by boosting the mine-is-bigger-than-yours mindset. Marketing has little to do with reality.

Dead Link Removed

Ken

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

41 megapixel is around the same capability with 25000 dollar Leica body. Amazing ! I can put it to the back of a frosted glass of a Zeiss Ikon Nettar and take amazing bw images. I am thinking for a long time to buy a scanner linear array with card , battery and memory altogether 10 dollars from Sony and Wrap around pinhole anamorphic camera and scan slow and record gigapixel image.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

And when the digital cameras around 4 megapixel , someone offering a free software to stitch hundreds parts of a arizona scene and make gigapixel image. I will never go to Arizona , mountain , desert or forest or nude models house and 4 dollars per roll is the most economic to me.
But that linear array is in my dreams.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Mustafa for prez I say

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tests at Kodak when the PhotoCD was being developed said that a 35mm image (including the results of the optical system) had about 16 megapixels. This would mean that to get 5000 megapixels, the film image would have to be 19 x 24 inches and the camera optical system would have to have 35mm camera quality.

Fred, I think that you are right here. This is due to the pixel size of about 10 microns right now which is close to the grain size in 400 or 800 films. But, did the study look at the optics of a digital camera? Did it compare anything to MF or LF cameras? And, most importantly, did the test factor in the effects of aliasing introduced by the side-by-side pixels?

All of the questions I raise offset the absolute nature of what you have stated, which is right AFAIK.

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Ron, the test looked at the system response (film plus optical system), since it was done to set resolution aims for the PhotoCD System I doubt they looked at the optics of a digital camera or compared anything to MF or LF cameras. Note that the Professional PhotoCD went up to 64 Base (25 megapixels).


Now that I think about it a bit, I think the test said that normal consumer 35mm images contained about 6 megapixels of information due to things like focus errors, camera shake, flare, etc. - this was the 16 Base resolution on the regular PhotoCD. The 16 megapixel value was base on the resolving power of a film (don't remember what film).

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Mr.Fred,

If we scan an 16megapixel film to 50 megabyte , where the information comes from ?

Thank you,
Umut

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Mr.Fred,

If we scan an 16megapixel film to 50 megabyte , where the information comes from ?

Thank you,
Umut

A 16 megaPIXEL image will be 48 megaBYTES in size.

It is possible to overscan a film image which contributes nothing to image quality and, in fact, may reduce image quality by adding non-image related 'noise'.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

And photo cd ,I gave my last 48 hours on learning about video codecs. With greatest possibility , photo cd was recording with YUV 4.2.2 codec.
The ideal is 444 codec and canon video slrs are using 4.2.0 codec.
YUV records 3 things , bw image , red and blue image. Computer finds the green from remaining.
At 444 , HD system uses it , there is YUV record per pixel.
At 4.4.2 system , photo cd is using it , more than % 35 of color information throwed.
At 420 system , system throw away % 50 of color information.

If photo cd records with 422 and records 48mb , the ideal is around 70 mb.

Umut

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

A 16 megaPIXEL image will be 48 megaBYTES in size

Thank you.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

The Kodak PhotoCD used a very clever (and complex) color encoding and then compression scheme. See http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/storage/pcd/techInfo/pcd-045.jhtml

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Its not a 32 bit YUV. A lot of color information throwen and they try to cheat the senses with lack of ability to act right. Unless British , German and Nordic people are not happy with HD channels and they want improvement when it is the best system at satellite and expensive.
16 megapixel - 48 megabyte story is interesting. BBC dont allow to air a scene shot by a cameraman at with least 50 megapixel and there is a backward quality worse than 30 years ago colors.

 

[removed account4]

Advertising. Primetime TV (what there still is of it), and AM radio. Although I don't generally listen to much of it myself, I wonder what kind of film sales could generated on the Dash Limburger program, for instance. Or some network TV presentation. Do you realize the average 21 year old doesn't know what film is? My point is, film doesn't have to die like this.

the post exposure infrastructure has been nearly dismantled ...

 

[Prof_Pixel]

BBC dont allow to air a scene shot by a cameraman at with least 50 megapixel.

Given that 1080 HDTV is only 2.1 megapixels, I can't imagine why they would set such a standard.

Note that for digital cinema: "In digital cinema, resolutions are represented by the horizontal pixel count, usually 2K (2048×1080 or 2.2 megapixels) or 4K (4096×2160 or 8.8 megapixels)."

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

May be it is for 24 frame and each frame covers 2.1 megapixel, I dont know. There is lots of discussions at bbc blogs.
You are the expert , let me add they try to air 35 megahertz grid without problem and no success. This is for 1920 line
plasma monitör.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

May be it is for 24 frame and each frame covers 2.1 megapixel, I dont know. There is lots of discussions at bbc blogs.

If they are talking about 16-bit/color resolution, then each pixel would be represented by 6 bytes. If the 50 represents megaBYTES, then (50 megabytes)/(6 bytes/pixel)=8.4 megaPIXELS which would be approximately correct for 4K digital cinema.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

let me find the links and blogs. give me one hour or less.

by the way , you can Google at this time span , bbc accepted cameras.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Fred, lost in all of this is the fact that digital introduces aliasing whereas film has none. And film does not produce jagged lines in diagonals.

PE

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Fred, lost in all of this is the fact that digital introduces aliasing whereas film has none. And film does not produce jagged lines in diagonals.

PE

Aliasing - you must always consider the Nyquist-Shannon criteria when sampling to avoid aliasing.

Film doesn't have 'jagged lines' but it does have grain clumps.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

A Google search points to a requirement of "capture footage at 50Mbps". This has nothing to do with the video image size.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Minimum Camera Requirements

Cameras usually have a minimum of 3x1/2” sensors or 1x1” and a recording format of a minimum of 50Mbs inter-frame or 100Mbs intra-frame.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Minimum Camera Requirements

Cameras usually have a minimum of 3x1/2” sensors or 1x1” and a recording format of a minimum of 50Mbs inter-frame or 100Mbs intra-frame.

Yup, the 50Mbs (that's 50 mega bits per second) is a data rate recording rate spec and not an image resolution spec.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Prof.Pixel,

I found a data mine for you. There are 140 pages and each have 10 publications written by BBC. This is my second day researching on video technology and my reason to do is the 10 or older years old BBC programmes and their excellent quality. I have a paid VPN Access to get ip address from all of the World and watching their museum, art , antiques programmes and I am watching BBC IPlayer for two years and on tv for 12 years. New programmes looks like cheap plastic colors , lots of visual noise , lots of unsharp areas , loss of quality.

I am researching how did they accomplish this quality with 30 years older equipment. They say at cinematography forum , at older times , they were bringing studio cameras on trucks and use them.

Now cheap cameras and everything.

Some older porn movies have exceptional quality , may be billion of people bought these cassettes and watched them. I watched Charles and Diana wedding from Sony TV 35 years ago and what a quality.

If this is colorists or older ccds or whatever I want to know them.

here is the link : http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/search?Type=Publications

Umut