Resolution of Film Versus Digital

[texchappy]

As far as resolution, I've seen at different spots on the net where some say that modern digital cameras have now surpassed film while others say that film still has more.

Which is it? Does anybody know for sure?

Bonus question: if you are going to scan then does the detail of 50 iso film versus 400 really matter?

 

[loquax ludens]

There is no simple answer. There are too many variables to answer a general question like that. Film size, not to mention other characteristics of the film, and the scanner that is used to scan it, make a big difference. Sensor size and pixel pattern and software and filters make a difference for digital.

Aside from MF and LF digital scanning backs, I do not believe there are any modern digital cameras that can equal the resultion from MF and LF film. I've heard that digital can out-resolve 35mm film, but I haven't cared enough about the debate to actually research that. If it hasn't already, I'm sure it soon will. One might reasonably expect that it will eventually approach and surpass MF, then LF.

For me, it doesn't matter. Resolution isn't the most important thing in my photographs, and it is pretty much irrelevant to me for viewing my own prints in common sizes at normal viewing distance.

For some types of technical work, it may make a difference. For the near term, I suspect 4x5 will reign supreme, but resolution isn't why I choose the medium, so again, I don't care.

Now I'll get my popcorn and see how this thread develops. But if it gets too technical, I'm sure I'll get bored, load some film in my camera, and go capture some light.

 

[Contarama]

I have read that the Daguerreotype camera has the best resolution of any camera ever made...fascinating!

If this is true modern cameras may have surpassed film but they are still not anywhere near mercury and silver. It is hard to beat atoms with pixels.

 

[Photo_Smith]

As far as resolution, I've seen at different spots on the net where some say that modern digital cameras have now surpassed film while others say that film still has more.

Which is it? Does anybody know for sure?

Bonus question: if you are going to scan then does the detail of 50 iso film versus 400 really matter?

Depends on the film, but if you mean 35mm vs FF digital then I think digital just about has it especially for colour. Some 20 ISO B&W films are very high resolution especially if you don't mind using top notch lenses with camera on a huge tripod remotely tripping the shutter blah...

Scanning 50 ISO film will give you an entirely different look from 400 take a look at Pan F vs HP5 you can see the difference with even a cheap scanner.

I'm with the poster who doesn't care about resolution, its content that counts!

 

[DtheG]

As has been said already depends on format and type of film etc.—
35mm film v FF digital: for normal to high ranges of ISO digital wins on resolution but not so sure about dynamic range. If you use a fine-grained (low ISO) film then perhaps it will win for fine tones etc.
Unless the whole process is analogue from negative to print, then even the finest film image will end up digitised at some point. There is still a place for film in photography as a fine art but for practical everyday uses and publications digital wins for me.

 

[DamenS]

For some types of technical work, it may make a difference. For the near term, I suspect 4x5 will reign supreme, but resolution isn't why I choose the medium, so again, I don't care.

Just curious - what makes you believe 4x5 is better (such that it "regns supreme") than some of the larger formats when it comes to resolution ? Is it because the lenses you get for something like a 16x20 camera are so much worse or because they are so limited by diffraction due to the need to step down for DOF ?

 

[mdarnton]

For me, where it matters is around EI 250. My Nikon D300 (half-frame, DX) at 12Mp definitely has Tri-X beat on sharpness, but doesn't have anywhere near the tonal range of the film. The new D800 has much more tonal range (I'm using it as an example because reportedly it's the greatest range of any digital 35mm), which still can't quite match what I actually regularly use on film, but should be even sharper. Maybe that's enough tonal range, all things considered, though. I'm guessing it will come pretty close to Panatomic X sharpness. . . . at EI 250.

But they're different animals, and maybe that's more important.

 

[Trius]

Texchappy: Why does it matter to you?

 

[Bill Clark]

Film has, well at least to me, film has the film look to it. Does it depict reality better than digital? Oops, film can be scanned! Darn!

Digital, how I see many photographs, is when they are worked on in the process stage, can have a surreal quality. I find many things can be done that, quite frankly, do they depict reality?

For people photos, most anything can be done. Old want to look younger. Most want to look slimmer. Need white eyes, no problem. Wrinkles on face, easy to take them out. Arms too heavy, slim them, oh you sigh, a little more?

Made an executive portrait a few months ago. Got to know the subject during the session. Showed the person the photos, you know, instant gratification many desire today. I suggested, "I can take 10 years off your face in PS!" He replied, "Bill, make it 20!"

Get the gist of where I'm going?

Yes, digital is wonderful. Too many actions, too much manipulation during the process stage. Is it real or not?

 

[Aristophanes]

I have read that the Daguerreotype camera has the best resolution of any camera ever made...fascinating!

If this is true modern cameras may have surpassed film but they are still not anywhere near mercury and silver. It is hard to beat atoms with pixels.

Unless the pixels measure atoms.

Both record photon-generated energy. How much is what you are asking. One can abstract measure it and, in the long run, sensor capture will surpass film.

If you are asking, odds are you cannot visibly tell the difference.

 

[loquax ludens]

Just curious - what makes you believe 4x5 is better (such that it "regns supreme") than some of the larger formats when it comes to resolution ? Is it because the lenses you get for something like a 16x20 camera are so much worse or because they are so limited by diffraction due to the need to step down for DOF ?

I didn't mean to imply that 4x5 is superior to even larger formats, and I didn't say that. I was comparing 4x5 to smaller formats in the context in which consideration of resolution is most meaningful. You could read it as "4x5 and larger reigns supreme", if you wish. Clearly, the larger the film, the greater the potential resolution.

In practical terms, 4x5 is as large as you need to go to get greater resolution than you can take advantage of in most applications. In 8X10 and larger, where scanning and optical enlarging is less common, it is usually the contact print size, not resolution per se, that drives the choice of format and film. I shoot 4x5 if I plan to enlarge or scan. I shoot 8x10 or 8x20 based upon subject and viewing considerations for contact printing.

 

[texchappy]

Texchappy: Why does it matter to you?

I don't know that it does ultimately. As you know I've been contemplating going back to film but unsure if it was right for me. I've read a lot of stuff lately about it and would read so many different answers to this question. I wanted to see if I could separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Photo_Smith]

The only way to separate 'the wheat from the chaff' is to give it a go, personal experience trumps everything–if you're happy why would you worry what chaps say on the interweb. Resolution is limited by many things, film/sensor, lens, shutter speed, aperture, processing etc.

Resolution wouldn't be the main reason for shooting film, I presume when you say going back you mean you wish to try 35mm film, if you need resolving power then large format will get you there, if you want small cameras that are convenient then a digital camera might be better with some very sharp primes.

I shoot film for a whole host of reasons, I like the hand craft aspect of developing and printing, physical mediums, my Rolleiflex camera suits my shooting style. I prefer not to sit in front of computers (for too long) and the whole film aesthetic.

Resolution is for bragging rights IMHO

 

[shadowfox]

I don't know that it does ultimately. As you know I've been contemplating going back to film but unsure if it was right for me. I've read a lot of stuff lately about it and would read so many different answers to this question. I wanted to see if I could separate the wheat from the chaff.

I know that you're absorbing as much info so you can make an informed decision.
But resolution is the least important factor for me when I choose between film and digital.

Why? because resolution is only a minor contributing factor in the type of pictures that I like to see, shoot, and print.

For others, only hi-res pictures will make them happy. So the first decision you have to make is, how important resolution is in photos that you like?

Notice that I am not saying that film is always inferior to digital, resolution-wise. Until they can produce a digital sensor the size of an airplane hangar, film still wins. 😀

 

[texchappy]

I know that you're absorbing as much info so you can make an informed decision.
But resolution is the least important factor for me when I choose between film and digital.

Why? because resolution is only a minor contributing factor in the type of pictures that I like to see, shoot, and print.

For others, only hi-res pictures will make them happy. So the first decision you have to make is, how important resolution is in photos that you like?

Notice that I am not saying that film is always inferior to digital, resolution-wise. Until they can produce a digital sensor the size of an airplane hangar, film still wins. 😀

I think I've decided I can comfortably do both. I'm going to play with film and even may order some B + W developing stuff (almost did the other day but may have to leave town for a family emergency so didn't want to leave anything on the porch too long).

Asked the question because as I was reading some people made a big deal of it either way. With the wise words on here I now can digest both sides with a bit more knowledge; thanks to all.

 

[Yoricko]

Generally, digital has more resolution than film. Unless you are using some 25 ASA lab film that can record over 500lp/mm or something of that sort ...

 

[.... _]

nobody ever worried about film resolution numbers before digital. They were and still should be, more concerned with lens resolution and good modern lenses have way more resolution than film or digital can deal with.

take a 6000x4000 pixel sensor (24Mega pixels). Then assuming you print at 300dpi you can get a 20x13.3 inch print. But no bigger unless you reduce output resolution which may or may not be acceptable. With a well produced 35mm neg which handled properly by someone who really knows what they are doing, you can easily produce a very high quality print of 20x13.3 and a lot bigger. So in the final analysis for your average print size of 12x8 inches or smaller, resolution is not even a consideration. Operator skill is far more important. Don't worry about it unless you are making really big prints. Subjective considerations are far more important.

 

[Dylan Hope]

I think it's easier to produce a poor quality digital print than a poor silver print from a resolution standpoint. The quality of some of the prints in the Libya/Egypt corner at the World Press photo exhibition in Auckland were pretty bad, even when viewed from a regular viewing distance. They actually looked like someone had resized a tiny little 500x333 picture from the BBC into an 8x12 print.
That said, digital definitely has the edge in terms of sheer resolving power from what I've seen.

 

[Aristophanes]

nobody ever worried about film resolution numbers before digital. They were and still should be, more concerned with lens resolution and good modern lenses have way more resolution than film or digital can deal with.

take a 6000x4000 pixel sensor (24Mega pixels). Then assuming you print at 300dpi you can get a 20x13.3 inch print. But no bigger unless you reduce output resolution which may or may not be acceptable. With a well produced 35mm neg which handled properly by someone who really knows what they are doing, you can easily produce a very high quality print of 20x13.3 and a lot bigger. So in the final analysis for your average print size of 12x8 inches or smaller, resolution is not even a consideration. Operator skill is far more important. Don't worry about it unless you are making really big prints. Subjective considerations are far more important.

Who prints?

Seriously, printing has been relegated to an esoteric practice mostly for value-added items rather than the normal output of the medium. When everyone printed because there was no other output option, resolution was critical, but for digital compromises are made to ne network-friendly.

 

[Godfrey]

There is no simple answer. ...

For me, it doesn't matter. Resolution isn't the most important thing in my photographs, and it is pretty much irrelevant to me for viewing my own prints in common sizes at normal viewing distance.
...

+1

Pass the popcorn, please. 🙂