"Are cameras sensors getting too large at 35mm? " Burn the heretic!
35mm was a cinema standard - it was projected large. I had some Kodachrome slides shown through a top-end Leica projector onto a top-end screen, cinema size, a few years ago and the quality was stunning. But digital and film produce a very different type of image, so comparisons of 'quality' seem to me to come down to a matter of taste rather than some objective measure. B > On 7 Feb 2015, at 19:27, Malcolm Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > In conversation with a neighbour today whilst I was out with my camera, I > was asked if a 35mm DSLR produces better images than film does. > > I really wasn't sure; the last time this really came up was when the *ist D > came out, and film was still meant to be far superior, in terms of capturing > detail and enlargement potential. So what size sensor does 35mm film equate > to? It appears that ISO 100 was deemed to be about 20MP, but later revised > to between 4MP-16MP, depending on the film, and 8 MP DSLRs produced an > 'image quality' close to 16MP. This says more here (last revised 2008): > > http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1/index.html > > A question/answer in a camera magazine today suggested that 24MP 35mm DSLR > prints could be made to A3 paper size (at 300ppi) and A2 with a 36MP sensor. > > This I found shows a 30" x 42" enlargement of a Velvia ISO 50 slide: > > https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikecostolo/3750325141/ > > I know I've seen similar size enlargements from 35mm DSLRs that look good > viewed at a close distance from the enlargement. > > I also understand the grain difference between film and digital files is > different, and I'm trying hard not to compare apples with oranges, but with > 35mm 50.6 MP sensors about to hit the market, have we now reached the point > where DSLRs conclusively capture more information than film (specifically > 35mm only)? Additionally, do we have to print at 300ppi? Can you reduce this > and still produce sharp enough pictures at an enlarged size - assuming the > image is a good sharp one to begin with? > > I don't think I've ever had an image printed beyond 16" x 20", so I'm > curious how far it can be enlarged and remain really quite sharp, for > example as a framed print in a large family room? Larger sensors equal more > detail, which you must be able to do more with including fairly big > enlargements from a small cropped area of any given image. Are cameras > sensors getting too large at 35mm? > > Malcolm > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
