I'm using the term in the ordinary sense of the word. The other aesthetic qualities you're talking about aren't resolution.
You have a lot to learn!
The other aesthetic qualities you're talking about aren't resolution.
Blah, blah, blah. Everyone needs to give it a rest.
There is no inquiry, just bickering.
I'm enquiring! I've looked closely at 35mm positives and can only see the equivalent of 15MP worth of detail. Beyond that it turns to mush.
If I'm doing it wrong and there's in fact 78MP worth, or 138MP (or 400MP worth as someone once told me) I want to know about it.
What units of measurement are you using to signify resolution?It is useless to try to determine a films native resolution by viewing it at it's molecular level without the aid of sophisticated forensic equipment!
What units of measurement are you using to signify resolution?
no clue how film depicts realism more than digital makes absolutely no sense to me ..I prefer to call it realism.
Sure. I wouldn’t argue there. Film does have a look that is hard to replicate digitally.
Blah, blah, blah. Everyone needs to give it a rest.
I am just referring to lp/mm.
Really? I thought you said there’s a lot more to resolution than merely the ability to discriminate line pairs?
The engineers that make the film spec it as such.
How many lp/mm do I need to make this photo:
https://d32dm0rphc51dk.cloudfront.net/1fbD3NrH4yEAbhk3IHjbjA/larger.jpg
At the molecular level, which is what you were advocating analyzing.I am just referring to lp/mm.
At the molecular level, which is what you were advocating analyzing.
How many lp/mm do I need to make this photo:
https://d32dm0rphc51dk.cloudfront.net/1fbD3NrH4yEAbhk3IHjbjA/larger.jpg
With all this arguing back and forth, I wonder how many folks here have actually tried a real-world comparison between a film and digital image. I have. I did it several years ago, and I was able to fairly closely construct a setting such that the two could be compared.
I used this image, a dupe from a slide which I took back in 1989 using a Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 macro lens and Fujichrome 100 slide film.
The point for comparison's sake that I used is the watch. For the digital comparison, I used a 10.1mp Canon DSLR (the highest res camera I owned then) and a 55mm f/3.5 Micro Nikkor lens (I no longer owned the Canon macro). The subject of the digital image was the same exact watch, taken at approximately the same distance as was used in the original photo.
Here's a 100% crop of the watch from the slide. The original slide image held enough detail where I could make out that the watch was set to "Thursday." But the text below "Rolex" is an unintelligible blur. This image is sharp enough such that I have resolved this Fujichrome 100 slide's grain, so that's as good as it's gonna get.
Here's a shot of the same watch taken at the same distance as the original. I don't think this is 100%, just a crop. And difference in image sizes are at least partially due to full-frame vs APS-C cropping. But still, the difference in the level of detail is dramatic. The text below "Rolex" is clearly legible.
Honestly, before I ran that test, I didn't think the difference between a sharp film image, using a relatively fine-grained slide film, and a digital image would be that great. But it is clearly indisputable that circa 1989 Fujichrome 100 has a resolving power significantly less than 10.1mp. Funny thing, though -- this info has not made me appreciate the film image any less. I still like it, and one thing that it conveys that the digital copy definitely does not is a certain warmth, whereas the digital image looks clinical. This is why I still shoot film for artistic expression and use digital for the more mundane stuff.
I am no advocate of it, as you would know if you were paying attention to my replies!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?