degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
No disagreement: I was handwaving on the cost of home developing. Plus using about $3.50 / roll for film costs. (and I have a descent home scanner already).
degruyl
Just this guy, you know?
Clearly, something is wrong. I have never used that scanner, but I have had very good results with scanning Large, Medium and small format on the Epson V750 (much better on the large and medium, but that is somewhat corrected by better film holders).
Have you adjusted the focus on your scanner?
Velvia has very low grain, and high resolution.
katgut@earthlink.net;1165177 Photos made with medium format may not be technically as sharp as the best digital said:
spystyle
Established
not_in_good_order
Well-known
35mm film scanned at 4000 dpi yields files where the image area is about 5688x3715.
Files from my D700 are 4256x2832.
The D700 files are cleaner when viewed at 100% because there is no grain, but I think the scanned film, under certain circumstances, can capture more fine detail.
Files from my D700 are 4256x2832.
The D700 files are cleaner when viewed at 100% because there is no grain, but I think the scanned film, under certain circumstances, can capture more fine detail.
spystyle
Established
I think that comparison would be more accurate with the D700's noise reduction turned off.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Consider subject matter: frizzy hair (in a portrait) is a great start.
With digital, the limit to resolution comes in 'jaggies'. With film, it is more-or-less random grain. Most people will find the latter more acceptable. This is where 35mm could conceivably deliver the equivalent of well over 30 megapixels.
At the other extreme, shoot hand-held in poor light with a fast lens wide open and you can make a case for 6 megapixes as an equivalent.
Having now taken a few hundred shots with the M9, I am increasingly convinced of the validity of the theoretical figure I have heard from quite a few people who should know what they are talking about, as they work for film, lens and camera manufacturers: that 18 megapixels is the starting point if you want to record the same amount of meaningful information as you can get on a slide shot on slow, sharp film with a top-flight lens on a tripod-mounted camera. Note 'meaningful' infomation: include grain as 'information' and you're probably looking at 80 megapixels.
Make the rather silly assumption that a film can deliver its maximum knife-edge resolution over its entire area and you're also looking at 80 megapixels, but film location with the vast majority of 35mm cameras, to say nothing of lens resolution and hand holding, ensures that 125 lp/mm is rare, even centrally, and not always repeatable.
Cheers,
R.
With digital, the limit to resolution comes in 'jaggies'. With film, it is more-or-less random grain. Most people will find the latter more acceptable. This is where 35mm could conceivably deliver the equivalent of well over 30 megapixels.
At the other extreme, shoot hand-held in poor light with a fast lens wide open and you can make a case for 6 megapixes as an equivalent.
Having now taken a few hundred shots with the M9, I am increasingly convinced of the validity of the theoretical figure I have heard from quite a few people who should know what they are talking about, as they work for film, lens and camera manufacturers: that 18 megapixels is the starting point if you want to record the same amount of meaningful information as you can get on a slide shot on slow, sharp film with a top-flight lens on a tripod-mounted camera. Note 'meaningful' infomation: include grain as 'information' and you're probably looking at 80 megapixels.
Make the rather silly assumption that a film can deliver its maximum knife-edge resolution over its entire area and you're also looking at 80 megapixels, but film location with the vast majority of 35mm cameras, to say nothing of lens resolution and hand holding, ensures that 125 lp/mm is rare, even centrally, and not always repeatable.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
filmfan
Well-known
Easy-- film for black and white and digital for color. Why is this so hard?
not_in_good_order
Well-known
I have noise reduction turned off. If I apply any noise reduction (with the D700, I typically only use a bit of color noise reduction at the higher ISOs) I do it in post.