|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
OK - now I'm depressed
I just did the math and my Nikon Coolscan V scans of 35mm chromes are equivelent (in pixels), to a 22MP back....  John Apr 17 06 01:32 pm Link Don't compare numbers. Compare qualities. Only compare numbers if you're in business. And if so, the numbers you're comparing will have dollar signs in front of them. Apr 17 06 01:34 pm Link Depending upon whose calculations you go by, the mega pixel equivalent of 35mm chromes is anywhere from 15 to low 20s. With cameras such as the 1DS MKII and the upcoming D3X, yes they are pretty much there as far as mathmatically equalling the maximum resolution capable from 35mm chromes. Step up to 120 film and its a whole different argument, most agreeing between 40 and 60 megapixels required to equal. If you're really looking to get the best from film, you're drum scanning it anyway. Now, how many of us NEED that kind of resolution? Not that many. There is plenty of resolution in my D2X to print beautiful two page magazine spreads. Also great 16x20 and nice 20x30 prints. If you commonly need to print at 40x60 then you should be shooing medium or large format film. If you fall into the "normal" range of common print sizes, go shoot and stop worrying. You should worry far more about the numbers with dollar signs attatched than hypothetical resolution equivalents. 10MP is plenty for most of us. I shoot 120 film very rarely these days. Patrick Apr 17 06 04:35 pm Link Not to mention, even if the scanner could do upto 22MP, 50MP, 100MP... chances are your negatives might not even be much more useful past 12 to 16 MP (course that depends on the sharpness of the emulsion, sharpness of lens, sharpness of focus, grain on the negative, sharpness of the scanner, etc) 20 megapixels out of a 35mm on a consumer scanner flat or otherwise is pushing it to a degree, now with medium format , not that hard even with a flatbed, but more expensive to get a coolscan equivilent to do a medium format scan. But like other said above, do not get hung up on numbers. What happens (or should happen) most the time, is that you scan it in at 2400 DPI or higher, then load it into photoshop or some other photo editing software, and you reduce the size until 100% looks crisp, then you have your true resolution of the negative as far as all the factors are concerned. I've seen too many film users ( and yes i'm a film user myself ) , get hung up on the numbers, assume that because a scanner is capable of giving such and such number is about the same as assuming that because a digital camera has 10 megapixels its obviously better than one that has 6. Size doesnt do you much good if it looks like crap. Go for Quality, not quanity. Apr 17 06 06:53 pm Link First Shot Studios wrote: I'm perfectly happy if my negs can match my digital rebel on an equal or better playing ground at the same megapixels. My medium format shots can often get upto 30 megapixels, but I usually scale down to 20, 16, or 12 megapixels depending on the film emulsion used, and which camera it was on (some of the vintage look best at 12 megapixels, where as my newer mamiya TLR can do 25MP great on velvia film at 6x6) , we get hung up on numbers, but in the end most of us would be perfectly fine with 6 to 8 megapixels since even a 16x20 in most cases is acceptible at that resolution, maybe just a tad higher like 10 to 12 to give some cropping room. As far as 35mm goes however, the megapixel race has come to a crawl and manufactures are looking at other features to attract consumers. Apr 17 06 06:57 pm Link |
