4 ms·

Ken Rockwell is largely regarded as a crank in the Pro-Am photographic community. He is well known for making blanket statements like: "A Nikon D40 is all the c

by teilo 16y ago

Ken Rockwell is largely regarded as a crank in the Pro-Am photographic community. He is well known for making blanket statements like: "A Nikon D40 is all the camera you will ever need" and "6MP is enough resolution for anybody." and "all higher MP gets you is more noise". All wrong. The biggest problem with this article is that he assumes that film has infinite resolution. This was just as ridiculous in 2006 as it is today. Anyone who knows a thing about analog encoding techniques will instantly spot the fallacy in this argument. The resolution of film is certainly more "organic" in nature, but it is not even remotely infinite. Film has grain, and while it is difficult to pin a precise equivalent PPI on film grain, it is nevertheless the case that you cannot exceed the resolution of the grain. Since 2006 the resolution of full-frame digital sensors has vastly surpassed film, and with Canon's announcement of a 120MP sensor, and the mainstreaming of 4K digital video, there seems to be no end in sight. As it is, the biggest bottleneck to resolution is now the glass. It is becoming increasingly difficult and more expensive to create glass with enough clarity, and low enough distortion to take advantage of the higher MP sensors.

jacobolus 16y ago
I’m not the biggest fan of Rockwell, but come on, > The biggest problem with this article is that he assumes that film has infinite resolution. No he doesn’t. > Since 2006 the resolution ... If you look, this article is from before that. So what’s your point? > As it is, the biggest bottleneck to resolution is now the glass. The glass has always been one of the biggest bottlenecks. Which is why bigger and bigger megapixel counts aren’t always so useful.
- teilo 16y ago
  I'm sorry, this wasn't the precise article that I thought it was. Here are the exact quotes: "20 years from now we can re-scan our film and get 2029-level image quality." ... "You can't go back to a raw file and get more resolution. With film, you don't have to make a resolution decision until you scan it. With film, you can scan at any resolution. With film, you can scan it again in 30 years with whatever technology we have then, because you still have your original raw image captured alive and well." ... "Real Raw needs no noise reduction. Details and textures are always crisp and clear on film." From: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm
  - jacobolus 16y ago
    Okay, that third one is nonsense, but it seems to me that you are deliberately misinterpreting the other two. The meaning which seems obvious to me is: “You’ll get whatever resolution a 2029 scanner can pull out of a piece of film, and you are therefore not limited by the scanners of 2009, because you’ll still have the original negative.” Anyway, low-ISO film has very very good resolution, I expect often exceeding the resolving power of the glass. So making it higher than that (that is, adding megapixels) doesn’t help anything. If you want higher resolution than a 4x5 negative (and I’m really not sure why you would, since a 4x5 negative will let you print crystal clear images at poster size or larger, so frankly this is all pretty academic and kind of a stupid argument), try an 8x10 negative. I’m almost certain there’s no widely available digital back that comes close to the resolution you’ll get. (If you had more money than you knew what to do with you might be able to get some kind of neat custom part or something). * * * Anyhow, Rockwell is an anti-raw-format zealot (he just does jpegs), as well as a view camera user, which is why the article you are linking to is doubly biased and stupid. But so what? If you figure out what his opinions are, it’s pretty easy to discount them when reading his essays; and, for instance, the essay you link can mostly just be ignored altogether.
coverband 16y ago
As a Nikon D40 owner, I strongly disagree with your points. Its 6M pixels have more warmth and life on my pictures than any other higher MP camera I've come across. Also, Ken's argument includes many other angles, such as the lightweight and practicality of this camera, not just the MP comparisons. As far as infinite resolution on the film: any analog source can be sampled at increasingly higher resolutions, and at some point it will be virtually indistinguishable from the original. However, higher res samples will always have more data from the source, though marginally less useful. Based on this, you can definitely state that film has infinite resolution.

by teilo 16y ago

jacobolus 16y ago

I’m not the biggest fan of Rockwell, but come on, > The biggest problem with this article is that he assumes that film has infinite resolution. No he doesn’t. > Since 2006 the resolution ... If you look, this article is from before that. So what’s your point? > As it is, the biggest bottleneck to resolution is now the glass. The glass has always been one of the biggest bottlenecks. Which is why bigger and bigger megapixel counts aren’t always so useful.

teilo 16y ago
I'm sorry, this wasn't the precise article that I thought it was. Here are the exact quotes: "20 years from now we can re-scan our film and get 2029-level image quality." ... "You can't go back to a raw file and get more resolution. With film, you don't have to make a resolution decision until you scan it. With film, you can scan at any resolution. With film, you can scan it again in 30 years with whatever technology we have then, because you still have your original raw image captured alive and well." ... "Real Raw needs no noise reduction. Details and textures are always crisp and clear on film." From: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm
- jacobolus 16y ago
  Okay, that third one is nonsense, but it seems to me that you are deliberately misinterpreting the other two. The meaning which seems obvious to me is: “You’ll get whatever resolution a 2029 scanner can pull out of a piece of film, and you are therefore not limited by the scanners of 2009, because you’ll still have the original negative.” Anyway, low-ISO film has very very good resolution, I expect often exceeding the resolving power of the glass. So making it higher than that (that is, adding megapixels) doesn’t help anything. If you want higher resolution than a 4x5 negative (and I’m really not sure why you would, since a 4x5 negative will let you print crystal clear images at poster size or larger, so frankly this is all pretty academic and kind of a stupid argument), try an 8x10 negative. I’m almost certain there’s no widely available digital back that comes close to the resolution you’ll get. (If you had more money than you knew what to do with you might be able to get some kind of neat custom part or something). * * * Anyhow, Rockwell is an anti-raw-format zealot (he just does jpegs), as well as a view camera user, which is why the article you are linking to is doubly biased and stupid. But so what? If you figure out what his opinions are, it’s pretty easy to discount them when reading his essays; and, for instance, the essay you link can mostly just be ignored altogether.

coverband 16y ago

As a Nikon D40 owner, I strongly disagree with your points. Its 6M pixels have more warmth and life on my pictures than any other higher MP camera I've come across. Also, Ken's argument includes many other angles, such as the lightweight and practicality of this camera, not just the MP comparisons. As far as infinite resolution on the film: any analog source can be sampled at increasingly higher resolutions, and at some point it will be virtually indistinguishable from the original. However, higher res samples will always have more data from the source, though marginally less useful. Based on this, you can definitely state that film has infinite resolution.