Times article: megapixels

PB
Posted By
Paul_Bullen
Oct 31, 2003
Views
511
Replies
17
Status
Closed
I found this article in the Circuits section of Thursday’s (October 30, 2003) New York Times enlightening:

"A Shutterbug’s Guide to Meting Out the Megapixels" by Ivan Berger

< http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/30/technology/circuits/30basi .html>

One thing that interested me was the claim that "35-millimeter film…has a resolution equivalent to 20 or 30 megapixels" (by comparison with the 2-6 megapixels common in digital photography).

–Paul B.
Chicago
Related Tags
article

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

LK
Leen_Koper
Oct 31, 2003
I coulnot read the article without logging in.
Nevertheless, some films indeed seem to have that resolution. Still the quality of 6 megapixel cameras looks better……
Reason: digital has no grain. You can only see the difference at edges and in extremely structured parts of the image. If part of the image has a solid colour, digital is superior. Usually there is more solid colour than edges in an image.

Leen
MM
Mac_McDougald
Oct 31, 2003
"35-millimeter film…
has a resolution equivalent to 20 or 30 megapixels"

Seems certainly true, maybe even more for certain films.

A 4000ppi scan of 35mm (Nikon IV, for example), is 21 MP A 5400ppi scan (new Minolta model), is 39 MP

Some folks on comp.periphs.scanners have shown that some 35mm films can resolve line pairs that exceed the capability of the Nikon IV to duplicate. Whether that line pair rez also exceeds the 5400ppi scan capability, I dunno.

Mac
BB
Bert_Bigelow
Oct 31, 2003
Mac,
If you print an 8×10 from a 35mm image using an enlarger and good photosensitive paper, how does the printed resoution compare to an 8×10 from a high-res scan of the same image printed on a good high-quality inkjet printer? I’ve always wondered about that.
Bert
BB
Barbara_Brundage
Oct 31, 2003
I found the comments about making large prints very interesting. I have to say that with my canon, the prints at the native res of 180 ppi are not noticeably inferior to prints made at 300 ppi, just larger. I would have expected to see sharper detail in the 300ppi prints, but honestly there’s very little difference.
CS
Chuck_Snyder
Oct 31, 2003
<honestly there’s very little difference>

Barbara, I agree; I’ve had the same experience. Part of the explanation may be that the printer is probably doing some of its own ‘resampling’ of the images sent its way. One of these days I’ll send a picture to the printer with one set of linear dimensions and two resolutions (maybe 150 and 300), then look at the output with a magnifier.

Chuck
PB
Paul_Bullen
Oct 31, 2003
If you were doing espionage or detective work and needed to get information from a photograph by enlarging a small portion to see what was going on, would there be more detail to work with if the photo was taken with film?

Last January I retrieved some slides I had taken at a 3-day outdoor rock festival in the late 60s. I had not viewed them for 35 years. I was 15 at the time and I had a pretty humble camera (not an SLR). I had them scanned at Helix in Chicago (possibly a mistake) and using Photosophy Elements (which I barely knew how to use) was able to get something acceptable even from pictures that were way to overexposed. But relevant to the question of detail, I happened to notice a sign way in the distance. All I had remembered about the identity of the festival that it was somewhere in northern Washington state (I had descended from Vancouver), probably in 1968. By enlarging the sign I was able to discern the name of the festival, and by a google search find out a lot of information about it. If I had taken those photographs with a digital camera, would I have been unable to read the sign?

You can see the photos at <http://paul.bullen.com/SkyRiverFestival/>

The banner is in the first two photos.

–Paul
J
jhjl1
Oct 31, 2003
Hello Paul, you have some nice pics there and good taste in music. I won’t tell our age but my wife and I still enjoy the same old tunes and my son has carried on the tradition. He left Denver yesterday for N.Y.C. to see Widespread Panic for Halloween. If I’m not mistaken he has made about 60 shows this year alone, youth is a wonderful thing. I believe they are now referred to as "Spread Heads".
—
Have A Nice Day,
jwh 🙂
My Pictures
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview

wrote in message
If you were doing espionage or detective work and needed to get
information from a photograph by enlarging a small portion to see what was going on, would there be more detail to work with if the photo was taken with film?
Last January I retrieved some slides I had taken at the age of
15 with a humble camera (not an SLR) of a late-60s 3-day outdoor rock festival. I had not set eyes on the slide since that time. I had them scanned at Helix in Chicago (possibly a mistake) and, using Photosophy Elements (with which I barely familiar), was able to get something acceptable even from pictures that were way too overexposed. But relevant to the question of detail, I happened to notice a sign way in the distance. All I had remembered about the identity of the festival that it was somewhere in northern Washington state (I had descended from Vancouver), probably in 1968. By enlarging the sign I was able to discern the name of the festival, and by a google search find out a lot of information about it. If I had taken those photographs with a digital camera, would I have been unable to read the sign?
You can see the photos at
<http://paul.bullen.com/SkyRiverFestival/>
The banner is in the first two photos.

–Paul
MM
Mac_McDougald
Oct 31, 2003
Not real sure.
Assuming a perfect neg (no camera shake, good lens on camera, perfect focus, etc), much depends on the quality of the enlarger lens too.

I’ve heard any number of folks there claim, though (and with line pair experimental evidence), that a 4000ppi scan of 35mm, re-imaged to photo paper via Fuji Frontier (or similar) beats conventional photo printing to paper. Meaning it resolves more line pairs that way.

Mac
MM
Mac_McDougald
Nov 1, 2003
If I had taken those photographs with a digital camera, would I have been unable to read the sign?

Depends.
While you would likely have lower overall resolution, just about anyway you wanted to define "resolution", you would likely have had more depth of field, assuming your film camera wasn’t focused on infinity.

(digicams have greater depth of field at same F/Stop than do film cams).

Mac
MR
Mark_Reibman
Nov 1, 2003
Paul,

You’re not going to believe this. I was there. The Sky River Rock Festival. What a shock to see that photo. It was a few weeks before I started college and I can remember it was the first time ‘I didn’t inhale’. Blow up that photo and maybe we’ll find me in it!

Wow, what a coincidence!

Paul actually contributed some of his photos to the historylink.org site adding to the photo archive of one of the great events of that time in local history.

<http://www.historylink.org/output.CFM?file_ID=1643> I think he caught a photo of me playing in the mud. I’m sure that would be something I would do. 😉
BH
Beth_Haney
Nov 1, 2003
"the first time", huh? 🙂
AM
Al_Millstein
Nov 1, 2003
This is a most interesting subject. Would hope for some more expertise comments from the experts. (Expert on pixels, not rock and roll and inhaling.)

I have a lifetime behind me of negative film use, frequently going to enlargements up to 16" X 20".

Since learning to play with computer, e-mail transmittals, and web pages, including PS Elements I have drifted away from enlargements due to enjoying this new media. Have resisted buying a digital camera because of reading about resolution limitations. What I do currently is have my film developed with CD. There is a place here that gives a higher resolution than the typical Picture CD, from which they make excellent quality 8" x 12"s from 35 mm. With 120 film, they do even better.

Recently I took a print someone shot with a digital camera, had it printed 8 x 10, then took it to Kinko’s and had them enlarge it on a copy machine to 11 x 14, using a semi-gloss photo type paper. No noticeable loss in resolution. What if I had gone to poster size at Kinko’s? Would I see pixels, or grain?

I am now considering buying a digital camera. Should I wait until 8 megapixels becomes more common (and cheaper)? Or can I reasonably expect to get high quality 11 x 14’s, or even 16 x 20’s with a 4 or 5 megapixel?

Al
J
jhjl1
Nov 1, 2003
Al wrote:
Recently I took a print someone shot with a digital camera, had
it printed 8 x 10, then took it to Kinko’s and had them enlarge it on a copy machine to 11 x 14, using a semi-gloss photo type paper. No noticeable loss in resolution. What if I had gone to poster size at Kinko’s? Would I see pixels, or grain?

James wrote>
What was the megapixel count of the camera used?

I am now considering buying a digital camera. Should I wait
until 8 megapixels becomes more common (and cheaper)? Or can I reasonably expect to get high quality 11 x 14’s, or even 16 x 20’s with a 4 or 5 megapixel?

James wrote>
As a photographer you know that a lot of factors can
come into play. One must consider the sensor quality, lens quality, algorithms used for in-camera processing, post
processing by photographer, etc. etc.. I have printed up to 11 x 14’s from my 6.3 megapixel camera that I am happy with. By the time the 8 megapixel cameras are more affordable you will be reading about the breakthrough 12 megapixel models. Go ahead and buy one and start enjoying it. Digital cameras are like
computers, as soon as you get one there is a new and better model for less money just sitting on the shelf with your name on it.

—
Have A Nice Day,
jwh 🙂
My Pictures
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview
BB
Barbara_Brundage
Nov 1, 2003
can I reasonably expect to get high quality 11 x 14’s, or even 16 x 20’s with a 4 or 5 megapixel?

Do you know, I think maybe you could, Al. I just decided to sacrifice some paper and ink to see. I took 3×3 tiff at 300 ppi and ran it up to about 15 x 15 (not sure exactly because I had to crop after a while to make it fit on the paper) and I was very surprised, even on my non-photo printer, at how decent the result was.

The flaws in my photography were more apparent, of course. It was a picture of some Indian corn and some of the silk was not very well in focus and it was REALLY not in focus by the end.

But most of the degradation seemed to come from the fact that i had over-applied the unsharp mask–every time I thought I was through I unsharped it, then thought, "Nah. Let’s go some more." i think if I had known I was going that far and so waited till the last step that the result would have been pretty tolerable.
BB
Barbara_Brundage
Nov 1, 2003
Forgot to say the original was taken with an S400. Only 4 megapixels and pretty small sensors.
LK
Leen_Koper
Nov 1, 2003
Al, you don’t have to wait for an 8 megapixel camera. I use the Fuji S2 Pro, a 6 megapixel camera and I can print 24"x36" (60×90 cm) without any visible problem. (I did it yesterday)
The bicubic interpolation in PE probably allows even larger prints, although I haven’t tried until now.

Leen
AM
Al_Millstein
Nov 1, 2003
Leen-

Thanks for the info.

Do you send them out commercially? Do them yourself? If yourself, what methodology, equipment, what paper, etc?

Al

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections