Line pair tests aren't rocket science. They're a practical and accurate method of measuring the actual resolving power of different formats. You said film has much higher resolution than the numbers that I provided (~15MP for fine grained 35mm), but your numbers (138MP and 78MP for 35mm ) appear to be theoretical as opposed to actual numbers.
"Star" is asking :"How to become an analogue photographer"?
-
A
- Thread starter trendland
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy 120/220 backing paper
- Started by MCB18
-
Found Konica AR 24mm or 28mm lens
- Started by blee1996
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Sinar Pan-Tilt Head
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Line pair tests aren't rocket science. They're a practical and accurate method of measuring the actual resolving power of different formats. You said film has much higher resolution than the numbers that I provided (~15MP for fine grained 35mm), but your numbers (138MP and 78MP for 35mm ) appear to be theoretical as opposed to actual numbers.
You have no way of testing the actual native resolution of film!
Until we have a way of testing it's actual native resolution, there will be no way to confirm or deny it.
Surely testing the native resolution of film is not beyond current scientific expertise. Seems I've seen pronouncements from Kodak on point over the decades. Besides who cares. It is what is is. It is merely a debate point in the continuing war over film vs. digital.
Last edited:
I was referring to those who lack the ability to perform a sophisticated forensic analysis.
A microscope with an electronic micrometer stage, a test target, and accurately known reproduction ratios.
I got 16 to 20 mp "equivalent" for easily available films like Techpan in day to day use, and an extreme of 25 to 28 mp with very careful technique.
And this is all you will achieve as long as the granular and refractive issues remain unresolved.
Those issues are inherent.
When I want more resolution in a print I use bigger pieces of film.
edit - 8x10 and 11x14 for instance.
It’s fairly easy. You look closely at a negative/positive taken with a very sharp lens and compare the detail to a digital image of he same thing taken with the same lens.
If your film can make out the same details as a 20MP sensor, it’s roughly equivalent to 20MP.
My own tests show that film has a distinct advantage.
A resolution advantage?
I got similar. Around 15mp for 35mm velvia. That was shooting a world map and seeing where the detail fell apart as compared to digital capture.
I have not done any tests in nearly 15 years, but top grade full frame digital is incredibly good. It equals or betters any 35 I have or have had, including the Leica and Zeiss stuff. A lens is only as good as the sensor it looks at.
I prefer to call it realism.
While viewing said film under a high quality loop?
I used pages from a phone book, and some USGS topo quadrangles!
No. While viewing said film with a 40x Wild stereo microscope.
It's "loupe" btw.
I used pages from a phone book, and some USGS topo quadrangles!
Ha.
My Simpson’s poster with every character is a good one too...
Sure. I wouldn’t argue there. Film does have a look that is hard to replicate digitally.
I consider this a different question to resolution. Resolution is simply that. The ability to resolve points/lines. Not how nice they look.
I prefer Futurama.
Isn't this the same as trying to judge the sound of audio equipment by looking at it's measurements!
Indeed.
Hopefully we're all on this same page. I use digital because it works, I use film because it's simply beautiful and beautifully simple.
Which is why I exclusively shoot it.
There is more to film resolution than just lp/mm!
That’s what resolution is - the smallest measurable detail.
You have a lot to learn!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |