English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-18 06:22:19 · 13 answers · asked by j110e 1 in Consumer Electronics Cameras

13 answers

Not answerable given the question, a very low speed film ASA 10 or 25 could be blown up to very large prints with no degradation in clarity, but not ASA 400 35mm film, but I have seen very large mega pixel cameras and blown up still do not compete with a good slow film, or my favorite Kodachrome, they are getting very close though and the convenience far exceeds the time and cost of the old 35mm cameras.

2007-01-18 06:27:25 · answer #1 · answered by Tim H 3 · 0 2

Unfortunately, your question is easier asked than answered.

The resolution of the film will depend on a number of factors, most notably the ISO film speed. A slow speed film (<100) will create a pleasing enlargement at a larger size than a faster film (>400). There are also differences in brands of films, and product lines within the brand.

The second factor you must consider is the fact that film does not divide the image into discrete "pixels," but rather you are looking at a chemical change in the film. Because of this, an overly enlarged image may simply appear blury (lens isn't as capable as the film!), or may show grain (especially using black and white films), but it is still not possible to determine a "megapixel" count.

Unfortunately, "megapixels" aren't everything. The quality of the sensor in a digital camera and the software in the camera also affects sharpness, so it is possible for two 8 megapixel cameras, for example, to produce images of distinctly different quality.

The only way to compare film to digital would be to make a very large print of an identical, highly detailed subject from a film negative and a digital image. If the two appear the same, make a bigger enlargement. At some point, one will appear sharper than the other. If it is the digital image, increase the megapixel count and repeat. Keep increasing the megapixel count of the digital image until the digital image is blury at the exact same time as the film image. That is your "equivalent" megapixel count for that film (as compared to that specific digital camera).

To give you a good idea of how much film varies, having scanned good, slow, film at 20 megapixels, I can tell you that the equivalent limit for some film is higher than that. Having also scanned in some very high speed film, grain was highly visible at that resolution, and the ultimate image appeared less sharp than my 5-megapixel camera typically produced (but even then it depended a lot on the exact picture).

Sorry there is no specific answer for you.

2007-01-18 14:51:19 · answer #2 · answered by Eric 3 · 2 0

Well - there's a huge argument about this... but what it really comes down to is how large a print you want.

At four megapixels you can pretty much print a poster sized picture with fine detail. At eight megapixels you've pretty much got the equivalent of a professional 35mm SLR...

Theoretically however, fine grained 35mm film is the equivalent of somewhere between 25 megapixels and 50 megapixels.

There's a great web page at http://www.dansdata.com/20d_res.htm that discusses the issue.

-dh

2007-01-18 14:32:28 · answer #3 · answered by delicateharmony 5 · 2 0

Some good answers here already.

In practical terms you can say that ordinary 35mm color film is certainly better in resolution than 10 megapixels and fine-grain specialist film is better than 20 megapixels in resolution.

But remember too that even relatively low megapixel sensors combined with top rate lenses and lens mounts can give a much better picture than high-megapixel sensors with mediocre lenses.

Any camera with a good lens and 3 megapixels up is good enough for most practical amateur purposes.

2007-01-18 15:06:03 · answer #4 · answered by Feinschmecker 6 · 1 0

Around 10-12 megapixels.

2007-01-18 14:31:24 · answer #5 · answered by JD 3 · 0 0

3 or 4

2007-01-18 16:29:28 · answer #6 · answered by Miss Amyy____x3 2 · 0 1

The people are right that say that you can't rate it in pixels. A pixel is a tiny square of color. Digital cameras break an image up into these squares, and the more pixels, the smaller they are, meaning that the image is sharper. 35mm film is coated with chemical layers that react to light, and the fine-ness of the image is determined by the actual crystals or grain of the chemicals. Since there are no square divisions in film, the image is very sharp because there are no little zig-zags happening. If you ever look at a photo on a billboard, you are looking at something that was shot with film. That's an incredible enlargement size.

2007-01-18 14:34:22 · answer #7 · answered by chustplayin 3 · 2 1

No pixels in 35mm film coz its analogue not digital. The picture is not made up of tiny pictures but one complete picture. You do not talk of resolution with this type of picture but clarity and grain-i-ness. The better the lens and film quality the better the picture, Oh and the photographer.

2007-01-18 14:27:02 · answer #8 · answered by multibite 2 · 0 1

I have read it to be the equivalent of 18 to 20 MP.

2007-01-18 14:41:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

35mm film has zero megapixels.
Megapixels are how many dots per inch (digitized)

2007-01-18 14:31:53 · answer #10 · answered by whymewhynow 5 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers