4 ms·

I believe that was 120 film. And yes - those looked incredible.

by mattbettinson 11y ago

KaiserPro 11y ago
120mm is about 6000 x 6000 pixels. (depending on film stock.) 36 megapixels. which is >> than the 2megapixels of HD
- frostburg 11y ago
  It was Ektachrome, E-3 process. All in all 36 mp of actual detail from those photos might be a bit optimistic, considering the harsh conditions (note that modern 36mp digital cameras don't reach 36mp of actual detail either, for various reasons, first of all bayer interpolation), but on second look these new ones are crummy. The amount of chroma noise is startling.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  You can go much higher than that. Medium format for example is considered to be between 60 to 80 megapixels.
  - frostburg 11y ago
    Not really; I actually own a film Hasselblad, I'm somewhat familiar with the issues. You can get really impressive figures by using film meant for document reproduction to shoot high contrast test targets, but this doesn't really translate to high resolution for real subjects. There are also significant problems with alignment, film planarity, grain (detail can still be gleaned even after grain starts being visible, but the signal to noise ratio gets progressively worse) etc. that further reduce theoretical resolution. For that kind of detail you need at least 4x5 inch large format.
    - ekianjo 11y ago
      I think it's a debated point. I have seen multiple folks comparing, with proper scanners, the resolution of medium formats vs digital pictures and found that the resolution of medium format was higher with quality films. If you use a bad scanner, if your film is of a poor grade, your experience will vary.
      - frostburg 11y ago
        (sorry for the late reply) What you're saying is not strictly false, but it's also not very useful for practical photography. High grade "practical" color film (ektar 100, provia 100f, velvia 50), shot extremely carefully with a vacuum back and drum scanned wet will out-resolve high end 35mm digital but lose against modern medium format digital backs; 6x7 or 6x9 with extremely good lenses (mamiya 7 system, alpas) might beat last-gen digital backs in some scenarios. Impractical 3 iso bw microfilm copy film stock (techpan, chs 20) used to shot something standing extremely still with an adapted photolithography lens might win against medium format backs, except if you need color, but at that point you're actually competing against scanning backs for reproduction work and the scanning back is going to prevail.
frostburg 11y ago
Almost. Typical V-series Hasselblad cameras use 120/220 magazines, but those provided too little film for too much weight, so the moon missions used 70mm bulk film. Actual negative size was still about 55mm x 55mm.

I believe that was 120 film. And yes - those looked incredible.

KaiserPro 11y ago

120mm is about 6000 x 6000 pixels. (depending on film stock.) 36 megapixels. which is >> than the 2megapixels of HD

frostburg 11y ago
It was Ektachrome, E-3 process. All in all 36 mp of actual detail from those photos might be a bit optimistic, considering the harsh conditions (note that modern 36mp digital cameras don't reach 36mp of actual detail either, for various reasons, first of all bayer interpolation), but on second look these new ones are crummy. The amount of chroma noise is startling.
ekianjo 11y ago
You can go much higher than that. Medium format for example is considered to be between 60 to 80 megapixels.
- frostburg 11y ago
  Not really; I actually own a film Hasselblad, I'm somewhat familiar with the issues. You can get really impressive figures by using film meant for document reproduction to shoot high contrast test targets, but this doesn't really translate to high resolution for real subjects. There are also significant problems with alignment, film planarity, grain (detail can still be gleaned even after grain starts being visible, but the signal to noise ratio gets progressively worse) etc. that further reduce theoretical resolution. For that kind of detail you need at least 4x5 inch large format.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    I think it's a debated point. I have seen multiple folks comparing, with proper scanners, the resolution of medium formats vs digital pictures and found that the resolution of medium format was higher with quality films. If you use a bad scanner, if your film is of a poor grade, your experience will vary.
    - frostburg 11y ago
      (sorry for the late reply) What you're saying is not strictly false, but it's also not very useful for practical photography. High grade "practical" color film (ektar 100, provia 100f, velvia 50), shot extremely carefully with a vacuum back and drum scanned wet will out-resolve high end 35mm digital but lose against modern medium format digital backs; 6x7 or 6x9 with extremely good lenses (mamiya 7 system, alpas) might beat last-gen digital backs in some scenarios. Impractical 3 iso bw microfilm copy film stock (techpan, chs 20) used to shot something standing extremely still with an adapted photolithography lens might win against medium format backs, except if you need color, but at that point you're actually competing against scanning backs for reproduction work and the scanning back is going to prevail.

frostburg 11y ago

Almost. Typical V-series Hasselblad cameras use 120/220 magazines, but those provided too little film for too much weight, so the moon missions used 70mm bulk film. Actual negative size was still about 55mm x 55mm.