Check me on this thought

[Pirate]

Not trying to continue the debate, I just had a thought and need to be checked on it so I know if I'm correct.

Parameters: Digital Sensor at full 36x24. Film at 35mm frame (colour or B&W) 36x24.

For any full frame digital shot, I have not seen any camera put out a file larger than 300 ppi. So unless one of you can correct me on this, I will continue:

Drum scanning a 36x24 film frame at 10,000 (because it is possible) should result in a digital image larger and with more detail than any full frame digital shot.

Is this correct? I know the 10,000 ppi scans are not every day stuff, but they can be done on request, so my question is valid so far.

 

[chikubi]

PPI is generally irrelevant re: digital files outside of printing concerns; only the final images dimensions have any real meaning. That said, I know a typical 35mm scan of mine @ 4800dpi works out to about 28 megapixels, which right now is only bettered by the Nikon D800. If I were to scan at higher resolutions like 7200dpi or your 10kdpi than very certainly I can say the file would beat any DSLR size-wise. Thing is, most info I've come across says that 35mm scanned above around 4000dpi becomes somewhat pointless as the grain structure itself is what eventually gets resolved better, but not any more real picture info. Arcsoft uses even lower dpi thresholds in it's scanning software based on the same reasoning and some other mechanical concerns of most scanners.

Thus, yes, you get a bigger file to work with, but not necessarily more resolution. I know that my 12MP files from my D3 are far, far better than any film scans I've ever made, and most definitely the same can be said for files from the D800, D600, 5D3, etc.

MF/LF film is another ballgame altogether, but in 35mm DSLRs really do shine.

I still shoot film though, 'cause I like its look for certain things.

 

[Pirate]

Thanks for that info. That's the kind of stuff I was hoping to hear about.

 

[Roger Hicks]

First of all, you need a tripod; an excellent lens, perfectly focused;slow, sharp film; and then a top-flight scan. At that point, based on my own experience, a Kodachrome or similar does indeed roughly equate to the 18-20 megapixels that so many put forward on theoretical grounds. This is based on drum scans of slides of mine that have appeared as double-page spreads (A3) in books.

With faster films, or any camera shake, or poor focus, the megapixel equivalents plummet: even 6 megapixels can look astonishingly good.

The thing is, a lot depends on how you define 'sharpness'. In one sense, yes, resolving the grain more sharply is 'empty' information. In another, sharp grain can create the illusion of sharpness. And you're comparing a random array (dye clouds) with a regular array (pixel layout), which further confuses the argument. On top of all this, advocates of either film or digital will always tend to overstate the advantages of their chosen medium.

As a VERY rough guide, I'd say that a top-slight scan of a good, sharp, etc., slide is not likely to be much below 14 MP or much above 21 MP. Even the most rabid defenders of either will rarely say that scanned film equivalents go under 12 MP or over 25 MP.

Cheers,

R.

 

[chikubi]

Thanks for that info. That's the kind of stuff I was hoping to hear about.

You're welcome. Roger makes some good points as well, so something to also consider. Ultimately, it's just not as cut-n-dry as a lot of people would like you to believe. Best is simply to build up your own personal experience from your own comparisons and apply that to your work as suited. Like I mentioned, I shoot both and they each have their pros and cons depnding on my needs (and feelings sometimes too). You'll be surprised how much you can learn by sitting down for a day with some scans and digital files and having a little lookie at what they offer.

 

[Nermi9]

One thing that I think makes difference with film compared to digital with how it looks is at the core of it all...

In regular situations, 400 film never be as sharp as digital sensor of the same size because of the grain, however, digital sensor is flat in the way it sees the light. Film is not and that matters when it comes to the depth of the picture because film emulsion layers have certain thickness... They are very thin, but if it's, let's say, 0.050 mm thickness, when it's enlarged 40 times from 36X24mm negative to a print or a screen, that's virtually 2mm of information in depth.

I think that's also why in general film has higher dynamic range than most digital sensors. When the light hits emulsion, there is room there for photons to play in. Digital sensor has no such room.

Digital might be wide, but film is deep.

 

[Pirate]

One thing that I think makes difference with film compared to digital with how it looks is at the core of it all...

In regular situations, 400 film never be as sharp as digital sensor of the same size because of the grain, however, digital sensor is flat in the way it sees the light. Film is not and that matters when it comes to the depth of the picture because film emulsion layers have certain thickness... They are very thin, but if it's, let's say, 0.050 mm thickness, when it's enlarged 40 times from 36X24mm negative to a print or a screen, that's virtually 2mm of information in depth.

I think that's also why in general film has higher dynamic range than most digital sensors. When the light hits emulsion, there is room there for photons to play in. Digital sensor has no such room.

Digital might be wide, but film is deep.

That is a very interesting thought. I like that.