- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,628
- Format
- Multi Format
That is debatable. The "higher resolving power" you see is to a degree created by algorithms in the camera software. Not so with film.
It depends what you want from a photograph, but most people would agree that a modern full frame camera has higher resolving power than an equivalent 35mm one. That's what I meant by objective.
Not to a degree, but completely. It's software "all the way down". Resolving power is the ability to render information before artefacts intervene. In digital this might be pixel stepping or processing glitches, on film, grain and softness. I've seen 18mp full frame images printed several feet across and fully resolved, nose to the print, so I assume 42 million pixel images will offer similar detail at even greater magnifications. I've yet to see a 35mm print offer similar information at the same magnification.That is debatable. The "higher resolving power" you see is to a degree created by algorithms in the camera software. Not so with film.
It depends what you want from a photograph, but most people would agree that a modern full frame camera has higher resolving power than an equivalent 35mm one. That's what I meant by objective.
Did you read my post?Unless there is a new sensor that the GRBG pixels are smaller than silver grains, this is bunk! They resolving power that you are claiming are artifacts of software processing and may or may not have anything to do with reality.
Did you read my post?
Your appeals to authority are not relevant to the discussion. The point is whether a current digital sensor the same size as a frame of 35mm film can deliver more information before artefacts intervene. Modern full frame sensors are constructed of up to 45 million pixels, which are then algorithmically processed . A 35mm 50 ASA transparency projected on the best quality reflective screen, will not render the same information as a such a sensor at similar sizes. A print won't come close before artefacts like grain become apparent.Yes, and I spent a career in Electrical Engineering, Optics and Computer Science, wrote books, and taught in a university as a professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science for a decade. What you wrote is technically called bunk derived from the elixir of goal driven desire to make digital imaging better than it presently exists.
That gets us into personal perception and what looks nice. 120 slide film on uncoated 3-element lenses looks nice to me, but I'm not using it for objective resolution purposes.Close up, algorithm sharpened images look "artificial" to me, since that's what they are. Comparable film images may not appear to be as sharp but look more natural.
In addition to sharpness, many other aspects of a digital image are artificial, but I digress.
This point has grown legs because someone took exception to my analogy between old audio equipment and film photography, and the use of the term objective. If I like the sound of cassette tape or analogue radio signals (which I do) and someone else likes the look of big landscape prints shot on a Minox, there is no higher appeal than our preferences. Hence my use of "warm fuzzy feeling". Other people have said the difference matters, not me. My point was addressed to quantifiable criteria that can be evidenced, and just as importantly, extracted from the source material.Does it really matter whether 50 ASA 35mm film has or doesn't have higher resolving power than a 45MP digital sensor. Is that what is important?
That gets us into personal perception and what looks nice. 120 slide film on uncoated 3-element lenses looks nice to me, but I'm not using it for objective resolution purposes.
Close up, algorithm sharpened images look "artificial" to me, since that's what they are. Comparable film images may not appear to be as sharp but look more natural.
In addition to sharpness, many other aspects of a digital image are artificial, but I digress.
It’s what we call a “shopping center” here in Brazil (yes, we say it in English, go figure!), but in the USA. I am not sure how they call it in the UK.
It’s really sorta like hell, especially on weekends.
Neither does film. Fragments of silver darken in light, and dyes are released. Neither of those were in nature. Photography is inherently artificial, an abstraction. Look at Kodachrome sometime, reality never looked like that. It may be a compelling look, but authentic it is not: http://blog.iso50.com/26784/large-format-kodachromes/That is because it is artificial. Change a coefficient and it will look different. Change the algorithm and it will completely different. And none of them will portray what is really there.
Does it really matter whether 50 ASA 35mm film has or doesn't have higher resolving power than a 45MP digital sensor. Is that what is important?
An article I read that described the physics and mechanics of digitising negatives said the following. The theoretical upper limit of a 35mm negatives is 50 megapixels +/-. That is to say a means of exhaustively resolving each individual halide into digital form. No such means exists. The practical upper limit is around 24 mp. A typical 35mm scan is around 5 megapixels.I would be very interested to drum-scan some of my negatives to see if this is really the case, or if my scanner is near garbage (Epson v750).
I never stopped using a fountain pen. Was that meant to be sarcastic? I can't even imagine using a biro,
Yes.
Looks like an AE-1 - far too new for a 1966 MustangI was at an antique car show and caught one of the participants who entered his old car wearing a film camera. This guy is all in. Still in 1966 although I can;t tell what camera it is.
View attachment 208875
I was at an antique car show and caught one of the participants who entered his old car wearing a film camera. This guy is all in. Still in 1966 although I can;t tell what camera it is.
View attachment 208875
Fair enough. I'm unashamedly old-fashioned!
I'm pretty young and enjoy things that are obsolete in a practical sense. Somethings are a joy to work with, others just get the job done.
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?