| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RL
Grubstaker
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 462
Location: SW US
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bighorn
Moderator
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 31
Location: is everything
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deathvalleydan
Death Valley Resident
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 564
Location: Lukeville, AZ
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:47 pm
Post subject:
|
 |
|
How many megapixles are film cameras? I know you can get a developed 35mm print blown up a lot bigger while retaining clarity than an 8 megapixle digicam.
_________________
Real freedom lies in wilderness, not civilization.
-Lindberg
Education is key to preservation. Knowledge is power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary_Edstrom
Jayhawker
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 31
|
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:59 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| deathvalleydan wrote: | | How many megapixles are film cameras? I know you can get a developed 35mm print blown up a lot bigger while retaining clarity than an 8 megapixle digicam. |
I gave up on film photography over 4 years ago! I had an Olympus E-10 at the time. It was only 4 megapixels, but 8x10 prints done from its pictures beat anything that I ever did in 35mm film. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ahamacav
Death Valley Resident
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 1191
Location: Eat, ME.
|
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:21 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Gary_Edstrom wrote: | | deathvalleydan wrote: | | How many megapixles are film cameras? I know you can get a developed 35mm print blown up a lot bigger while retaining clarity than an 8 megapixle digicam. |
I gave up on film photography over 4 years ago! I had an Olympus E-10 at the time. It was only 4 megapixels, but 8x10 prints done from its pictures beat anything that I ever did in 35mm film. |
I think I'm going to stick with digital. I got a call from a big deal museum in NYC last year and missed out on a chance to hang a 10'x20' dry lake photo on their wall. I guess my recent consideration of film is resulting from some kind of psychological damage that was done when I told them it was low res digital. Curses- My destiny is no destiny, my style is no style. At least they're looking, I suppose.
Hmm... Anyone know why if you order 'two eggs any style' from the Crowbar menu, the waitress still asks how you want them?
Maybe digital ain't so bad.
[center:76ff1b98b2]
[/center:76ff1b98b2]
_________________
Visit my web site, everyday, ... all day long - http://digital-desert.com/
Last edited by ahamacav on Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RL
Grubstaker
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 462
Location: SW US
|
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:43 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| ahamacav wrote: | | At least they're looking, I suppose.Hmm... Anyone know why if you order 'two eggs any style' from the Crowbar menu, the waitress still asks how you want them? |
I wonder more about the apparently smooth tires on Gary's golf cart and him getting stuck on the Devil's Golf Coarse.  Now that would make a good mural. Got Jeep? 
BTW-Glad you are staying "ones and ohhhhs"...
How much money did you loose by by not getting that mural job? A Bunch? Or is it an achievement loss/Peer thing? Curious... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ahamacav
Death Valley Resident
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 1191
Location: Eat, ME.
|
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:50 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
The Guggenheim?
I would have given my brother's left ntu.
_________________
Visit my web site, everyday, ... all day long - http://digital-desert.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RL
Grubstaker
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 462
Location: SW US
|
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 10:39 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
I edited my response. What was I thinking ? This isn't a camp fire in the desert 
Sorry..
RL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary_Edstrom
Jayhawker
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 31
|
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Film will be around for a while yet, but it will become more and more expensive as the demand falls. Just like vinyl records...there is still a niche market for them, but they are expensive. Like it or not, digital is the wave of the future (PRESENT!). Even the National Geographic now uses digital pictures in their magazine. Those who want to hold on to film are fighting a loosing battle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David_Bricker
PSR Fire Marshall
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 552
Location: Upstate, NY
|
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 9:44 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
A bit off-topic, but related to film.
Will I, as a relatively well experienced photographer (not pro, just shooting pixs for 40 years), using an old Pentax 35mm SLR (KX or ME Super), with Pentax branded lenses, and decent filters, shooting Kodak print film 400ASA
see any real difference in a 4 x 6 or 5 x 7 print of an indentical shot taken with:
A Pentax Optio 750Z, printing my own 4 x 6 pictures on a Hi-Ti dye-sub printer?
I am also tempted by Pentax's new d-SLR, 6MP, with anti-shake in the body. Makes all my existing lenses anti-shake.
David Bricker / SYR |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anderld47
Grubstaker
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 170
Location: calistoga, ca
|
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:48 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| deathvalleydan wrote: | | How many megapixles are film cameras? I know you can get a developed 35mm print blown up a lot bigger while retaining clarity than an 8 megapixle digicam. |
Depending on what you are doing with it, I think 35mm film is equivalent to 6 to 9 megapixel. Nikon D2Xs is almost 13 MP and Fujifilm has a 20.8 megapixel medium format back (don't know what that translates to in 35mm). For reviews of digital equipment GOTO
http://www.dpreview.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morrie
Grubstaker
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 319
Location: Hopkinton, Mass.
|
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:18 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
I have about 10,000 Kodachrome and Ektachrome slides made over the years with various 35mm SLRs, mostly handheld. When I use a 2700 dpi scanner to scan these slides (which translates to about 10 MP), I always exceed the resolution of the slide. I know that technically 35mm slide film can have much higher resolution, but in practice for handheld shots I don't think most people have ever experienced more than a 10 MP equivalent.
My favorite slide film was Velvia for a while until Ektachrome Elite came around. For outdoor shots, especially in high contrasty desert scenes, my 5 MP ultra-compact takes much more satisfying pictures in almost all cases. Even though the resolution is lower, the better dynamic range (compared to slide film) and flexibility in post processing makes a world of difference and I never have an issue printing such a shot even up to 13x19 (although purists would be alarmed blowing up 5 MP that big).
Usually though for "big scenes" I take panorama shots stitched together. My biggest 360 degree panorama prints about 8' wide and 1' high, and is probably around 30 MP (12 overlapping 5 MP shots) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Death Valley Resident
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 604
Location: bay area
|
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:08 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Morrie wrote: | | When I use a 2700 dpi scanner to scan these slides (which translates to about 10 MP), I always exceed the resolution of the slide. |
What ISO are those chromes?
It's apples/oranges trying to equate dpi with mega pixels. What determines grain in film emulsions is the ISO rating. Most people shoot (or used to shoot) with 400ISO film, which would yield grain at even a 5x7 enlargement. The lower the ISO rating, the finer the silver halide crystals on the film, and thus the lower the light sensitivity. But those fine crystals made for extremely high-resolution images. Over the years, film technology advanced to the point where ISO 200 films are now where Kodachrome 25 was 50 years ago. And Fuji Velvia 50 is off the market, as far as I know, replaced by Provia 100.
This debate is still raging on camera forums, but the consensus, as I see it, seems to be that the 8 mega pixel sensors are about as good as professional film, and the 10mp and up sensors are BETTER. All of this excludes the medium and large format films, of course.
Assuming Morrie was using ISO 200 or lower, it was the hand-holding camera shake that contributed more to any blur or graininess than anything else.
| Morrie wrote: | | Usually though for "big scenes" I take panorama shots stitched together. My biggest 360 degree panorama prints about 8' wide and 1' high, and is probably around 30 MP (12 overlapping 5 MP shots) |
Do you mean 30 megaBYTES? Taking consecutive shots and adding the megapixels isn't quite fair....
If you took the same shot with a higher megapixel camera, and compared a large print side by side with the 5mp camera's print, you'd see a big difference. That said, for most folks, 5mp is plenty. You can get a great 5x7, and maybe an acceptable 8x10 if you aren't too demanding, and how many people really need more than that? Not too many.
Finally - once you have the film or sensor you want, the NUMBER ONE FACTOR in the sharpness, color, and overall quality of your pictures is the LENS. Everyone rushes out to buy the latest whiz-bang camera body, and then mounts a $300 kit lens on it. Spend your money on glass and the pics will show the results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morrie
Grubstaker
Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Posts: 319
Location: Hopkinton, Mass.
|
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:16 am
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Scott wrote: | | What ISO are those chromes? |
My Kodachromes were generally 25 or 64 and Ektachrome Elites were probably 100. I rarely used 400 because it was obviously grainy. Yes, I believe camera shake was the main reason for lack of sharpness, although inferior lens (either stock Olympus OM or 3rd party zoom lens) could have been an issue.
| Scott wrote: | | Do you mean 30 megaBYTES? Taking consecutive shots and adding the megapixels isn't quite fair.... |
Yes it is. If I stitch together 6 shots horizontally at 2000x1500 pixels, I get one shot at 12,000x1500 pixels -- pure addition. In my case I stitched together horizontally twelve 5 MP shots and, estimating 50% overlap, I ended up with about 30 MP altogether. The shape of the picture may be funny (long and skinny) but it still has 30 MP in it. If I were to print that picture 10" wide it would be only 1.2" high, but if I had a high enough resolution printer (which doesn't exist) I'd be able to resolve 1200 dpi in that skinny print.
In fact, one way to get more megapixels in a normal-shaped print is to take an array of overlapping shots, say 9 shots in a 3x3 grid, and then painstakingly stitch them together on computer. Assuming no loss due to the stitching process, the effect would be as if you had a wide angle lens with a camera that has 9x the megapixels. You have to be really desperate to want to do this. I tried it once because I wanted to photograph a scene from my balcony that I couldn't fit into a field either vertically or horizontally, and I found it nearly impossible to stitch the photos together convincingly with the tools I had a the time. But it could be done, in theory, if you had a camera with zero barrel distortion or vignetting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anderld47
Grubstaker
Joined: 24 Jun 2006
Posts: 170
Location: calistoga, ca
|
Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 6:50 pm
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Morrie wrote: | | My Kodachromes were generally 25 or 64 and Ektachrome Elites were probably 100. |
I used to use a lot of Kodachrome 64 pushed to 80 for a little more saturation, later getting into the Velvia. But the digital format really allows you more options. I'd think it's almost like shooting and developing your B&W films then manipulating the prints.
Larry |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
