• Home

Maxmullins Online Shop

Top online bargain discount store!

1. Austin Roper November 5, 2011 at 3:23 pm

   20 megapixels is equivalent to 120 film according to this website… http://www.lightwavephoto.com/basphoto1.html

   Reply
2. olathez November 8, 2011 at 4:56 pm

   If you have the option of using a medium format film camera, stick with that. It sounds like you are very concerned with the quality of the image, digital can in no way replicate the tonal gradation of the medium format film.

   Reply
3. Diverging Point November 5, 2011 at 12:19 pm

   I have yet to see any digital camera that can come anywhere near the quality of 120 film…especially real optical prints developed in a darkroom.

   In fact, even 35mm negatives capture an incredible amount of detail. Most people really have no idea how much detail and information film can actually capture, because they’re just used to taking snapshots with a cheap digital point and shoot camera.

   I develop my own black and white film, and I set up a darkroom to develop prints. Let me tell you from firsthand experience…the detail is absolutely incredible. I’ve loved taking pictures ever since I was a kid, and I’ve always used film. But even I had no idea how sharp film can really be until I learned to develop it myself. Then when I started developing my own prints, I was totally blown away.

   I’ll give you an example. I’ve taken pictures on my street with a 35mm camera. The image on the negative is so sharp that I can crop and magnify it on my enlarger and CLEARLY see every bolt and rivet on a fire hydrant that was across the street! Just as a test, I developed the print and you could clearly see "City Inspected" stamped on the fire hydrant. Again, that was from across the street…actually, from the opposite diagonal corner. It must have been 150 feet away, at least. If you try to zoom in that much on a digital image, you’ll just start seeing pixels.

   That was just with a 35mm camera. Imagine how much detail 120 roll film can capture.

   Another example. One of my friends took a picture of me with my Yashica A, which is a Twin Lens Reflex camera. It uses 120 roll film. He took the picture in front of my house, on the front yard. He was too far away, on the other side of the yard, which must have been at least 20 feet away. But when I was developing the print, I decided to pull the enlarger out as far as I could, just to see how detailed I could get the picture. It was so sharp that you could see all the blades of grass where I was standing, and even the aglets on my shoelaces.

   Go ahead…try to do that with a digital camera. Not going to happen.

   That’s why they say not to magnify a digital image too much and not to "pixel peep." Well, guess what…with film, I can pixel peep all I want. The detail and sharpness is absolutely incredible.

   Light causes a chemical reaction on film at the molecular level. When you take a picture with film, you are actually causing a chemical reaction and capturing an image at the molecular level. In a sense, the light is literally "burning" an image onto the film.

   Digital cameras are convenient and they can take decent pictures…but they are nowhere near the quality of film, especially medium format film. And that’s just because of the nature of how film works. Digital cameras capture an INTERPRETATION of the image, from binary electronic information gathered from the sensor….whereas film works directly with light and optics to burn a true, physical image onto the film.

   I agree with Larry…if you want a digital camera that can compare with the quality you can get with 120 film, then you better be able to fork over some serious cash. And actually, I don’t think they’re even there technologically. I’ve been told that even 35mm film captures the equivalent of about 100 megapixels of information.

   Reply
4. Larry R November 6, 2011 at 12:32 am

   Sure, you’d just need about a 310MP sensor:

   "So how many pixels does it take to describe all the detail we can get from film?

   Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero.

   Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what’s on Velvia 50.

   320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.

   35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters.

   To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you’ll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.

   But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn’t see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.

   Since the lie factor factor from digital cameras is about two, you’d need a digital camera of about 87 x 2 = 175 MP to see every last detail that makes onto film.

   That’s just 35mm film. Pros don’t shoot 35mm, they usually shoot 2-1/4" or 4×5."

   At the same rates, 2-1/4" (56mm square) would be 313 MP, and 4×5" (95x120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP, with no Bayer Interpolation. A digital camera with Bayer Interpolation would need to be rated at better than 2 gigapixels to see things that can be seen on a sheet of 4×5" film"

   Reply
5. Teri November 8, 2011 at 6:25 am

   Yes, with a larger sensor and a higher pixel count. In other words, with one of these medium format digital cameras:

   http://www.google.com/products?q=medium+format+digital&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=kqKIS5anINOulAfgk8XOAQ&sa=X&oi=product_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQrQQwAA

   By the way, it’s not 120mm film. That’s just the designation, not the size.

   Reply

Copyright © 2012 Maxmullins Online Shop  | Theme zBench  | Powered by WordPress