3 ms·

what makes you think 200 megapixel is close to actual film resolution? he doesn't mention a number about film resolution in that article. Film resolution might

by mtw 15y ago

what makes you think 200 megapixel is close to actual film resolution? he doesn't mention a number about film resolution in that article. Film resolution might be 30mpx, 100mpx, 3000mpx ... or even infinite

ars 15y ago
It's not infinite, 35mm film resolution is around 36MP, and prints made from it can be as low as 4MP. A better comparison for this camera would be medium format, not 35mm. So quadruple all the MP numbers.
- sjwright 15y ago
  This actual test from 2006 disagrees with you: http://www.ales.litomisky.com/data/projects/Analog%20versus%20Digital%20Shootout%20%28Hasselblad,%2035mm,%20Canon%205D%29/ http://www.ales.litomisky.com/data/projects/Analog%20versus%...
  - ars 15y ago
    No it doesn't. This test agrees with me. It doesn't give actual resolution numbers since they didn't test correctly, but otherwise it agrees with me.
    - sjwright 15y ago
      Apologies, I should have mentioned that I was responding specifically to your claim that "35mm film resolution is around 36MP". I agreed entirely with the remainder of your post. If the best 35mm film scanned with the best drum scanner can be trounced by a five-year-old 12 megapixel camera, well, it doesn't really matter IF the 36MP claim is accurate. Outside of the lab, only achievable results matter. The fact that a 5D can even approach the quality of 50 ASA medium format film should give people pause.
- mtw 15y ago
  "35mm film resolution is around 36MP" where did you get that? I've seen lots of numbers, here it is 175MP http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm in other articles, they mention another number, for the same film.
  - ars 15y ago
    He's comparing the highest quality film known to man. It's also a very slow speed ISO50 film. Higher speed (i.e. more light sensitive) film has nowhere near that level of resolution. Plus his doubling at the end because of RGB is wrong. So the real number is 87MP for this super film, and 36MP for more ordinary (but still high quality) film. More typical consumer film goes even lower. Also his source data of 160 lines is only for very high contrast source material. In more typical scenarios the number is half this (so the MP count is 1/4 of what he said).

by mtw 15y ago

ars 15y ago

It's not infinite, 35mm film resolution is around 36MP, and prints made from it can be as low as 4MP. A better comparison for this camera would be medium format, not 35mm. So quadruple all the MP numbers.

sjwright 15y ago
This actual test from 2006 disagrees with you: http://www.ales.litomisky.com/data/projects/Analog%20versus%20Digital%20Shootout%20%28Hasselblad,%2035mm,%20Canon%205D%29/ http://www.ales.litomisky.com/data/projects/Analog%20versus%...
- ars 15y ago
  No it doesn't. This test agrees with me. It doesn't give actual resolution numbers since they didn't test correctly, but otherwise it agrees with me.
  - sjwright 15y ago
    Apologies, I should have mentioned that I was responding specifically to your claim that "35mm film resolution is around 36MP". I agreed entirely with the remainder of your post. If the best 35mm film scanned with the best drum scanner can be trounced by a five-year-old 12 megapixel camera, well, it doesn't really matter IF the 36MP claim is accurate. Outside of the lab, only achievable results matter. The fact that a 5D can even approach the quality of 50 ASA medium format film should give people pause.
mtw 15y ago
"35mm film resolution is around 36MP" where did you get that? I've seen lots of numbers, here it is 175MP http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm in other articles, they mention another number, for the same film.
- ars 15y ago
  He's comparing the highest quality film known to man. It's also a very slow speed ISO50 film. Higher speed (i.e. more light sensitive) film has nowhere near that level of resolution. Plus his doubling at the end because of RGB is wrong. So the real number is 87MP for this super film, and 36MP for more ordinary (but still high quality) film. More typical consumer film goes even lower. Also his source data of 160 lines is only for very high contrast source material. In more typical scenarios the number is half this (so the MP count is 1/4 of what he said).