I understand your question. Of course, film doesn't have pixels, but the grain "fineness" is about the same as 17-to-20 MP. I can't give a source for this information, but this is what is quoted in the magazines and on-line all the time.
2007-05-26 15:43:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by Picture Taker 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maga pixels is a reflection of how large a print out you can make. I don't know the exact conversion off the top of my head, but, if for example if you wanted to print an 8x10 you need something like 4Mp. 2Mp largest print would be 4x6, if you think you want to print an 11x14 you need like 5Mp or 6Mp. That doesn't mean you can't make a smaller, you just can't go any larger. For most people, an 8x10 is the largest they can print because of their printer.
Film doesn't work that way, with film you can use the lenses with an enlarger to make print any virtually any size.
2007-05-26 18:02:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by I Like Stories 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Im thinking we would have to compare them based on how large we could reproduce a printed image of equal quality between the two. though im no expert on this. With film this would depend on the grainess of the film , type of lense used and i would imagine the lense used to enlarg the negative image to final picture paper. Ive herd of 35mm film being enlarged to 13x19's maybe even larger ? a 10mp dslr can do that at 300dpi
2007-05-26 18:21:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by aaron 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you mean for e-mailing or websites , you don't need much, maybe 4 MP.
If you mena for printing, depends on size of pic,
the bigger the pic from 4X6, the more MP you'll need for photo quality.
If you're making big prints 11X14 to20X30, you'll need pro level MP 10 or 12.
2007-05-26 18:00:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Michael M 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
hard to determine the equality because of it's differences.
2007-05-26 22:59:19
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jaron 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
maybe if you go to howstuffworks.com
you may find the answer
good luck
2007-05-26 18:32:19
·
answer #6
·
answered by Elvis 7
·
0⤊
1⤋