If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
"Bob Donahue" wrote in message . .. Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.) Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI. I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer is pretty obvious. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
danny wrote:
"Bob Donahue" wrote in message . .. Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.) Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI. I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer is pretty obvious. You are mistaking the arbitrary "DPI" number placed into the JPEG file by some software with the actual resolution of the cameras. The Nikon D3, for example, has a pixel pitch of 4256 / 36 pixels per mm, i.e. 118 pixels/mm, or 3003 pixels per inch. David |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
In article , danny
wrote: Film is still better than digital. only with specialized film in specific situations. otherwise, digital is *much* better than film. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI. if there's no detail in the film, it doesn't matter how high you scan. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI. no, most digital cameras just write a number (usually 72, sometimes 300). it's meaningless. dpi doesn't matter until you print, at which point it can be calculated. I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer is pretty obvious. what's obvious is that you don't understand what you're looking at. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
"David J Taylor" wrote: danny wrote: Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI. I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer is pretty obvious. You are mistaking the arbitrary "DPI" number placed into the JPEG file by David, please. Take a deep breath, calm down, and go get your sense of humor back from the dog, who seems to have run off with it. -- David J. Littleboy Who is usually pretty humorless himself in Tokyo, Japan |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
"danny" wrote:
"Bob Donahue" wrote in message ... Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.) Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI. Actually that's SPI (Samples Per Inch), something _very_ different from DPI. DPI is a property of an _OUTPUT_ device, e.g. a printer or a monitor. It is also (incorrectly?) used to indirectly indicate the size of an original document when scanned (300DPI, 3000x2000 pixel == the original document was 10x6 inches). Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI. Which of course is totally meaningless and only a placeholder, because traditionally some value had to be put in that field for the benefit of some programs that otherwise will crash. It is totally up to you if you display that digital photo on a mega-TV with 20DPI, an electronic billboard with 0.1DPI or a miniature display with 600DPI. I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer is pretty obvious. Apples and cars (no, not even oranges). Those two numbers have nothing to do with each other. jue |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote: danny wrote: Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI. I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer is pretty obvious. You are mistaking the arbitrary "DPI" number placed into the JPEG file by David, please. Take a deep breath, calm down, and go get your sense of humor back from the dog, who seems to have run off with it. .... and there was I thinking that the OP might actually not have understood! Dang! No dogs here, BTW. Nor humour in the OPs post. David |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
"danny" wrote:
Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI. I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer is pretty obvious. The scanned 9600 DPI image will not have better resolution than the negative, and the 35mm negative doesn't have as much resolution as a modern 35mm sized electronic sensor. Further, the DPI resolution listed in the Exif data on digital cameras has no relationship to image resolution. It only a way to automatically determine a size for printing (by dividing the pixel dimensions by the DPI value), but it is usually ignored. If you would like I can produce an image from a Nikon D3 (which natively puts "300" in the Exif data for X and Y resolution) that has been changed to 100,000 DPI. It will still be exactly the same image though... and technically (with 4288 pixels across on a 1.42" wide sensor) is about 3020 DPI, but of course just as the film negative does not have that much resolution, neither does the image recorded by the electronic sensor. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
danny wrote: "Bob Donahue" wrote in message . .. Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film. (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm film.) Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI. The image is converted to 72dpi by the editor by increasing the length x width. I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer is pretty obvious. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
35mm film VS digital
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
"danny" wrote: Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI. I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer is pretty obvious. The scanned 9600 DPI image will not have better resolution than the negative, and the 35mm negative doesn't have as much resolution as a modern 35mm sized electronic sensor. Further, the DPI resolution listed in the Exif data on digital cameras has no relationship to image resolution. It only a way to automatically determine a size for printing (by dividing the pixel dimensions by the DPI value), but it is usually ignored. If you would like I can produce an image from a Nikon D3 (which natively puts "300" in the Exif data for X and Y resolution) that has been changed to 100,000 DPI. It will still be exactly the same image though... and technically (with 4288 pixels across on a 1.42" wide sensor) is about 3020 DPI, but of course just as the film negative does not have that much resolution, neither does the image recorded by the electronic sensor. You'd have sounded a bit more authoritative if you'd have used the correct term in the last paragraph, "PPI". -- john mcwilliams |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
35mm film vs Digital..what is the difference? | Marion | 35mm Photo Equipment | 252 | January 3rd 07 01:08 AM |
35mm Film vs Digital again | Graham Fountain | 35mm Photo Equipment | 23 | December 22nd 05 05:45 AM |
Digital images to 35mm slide film | Malevil | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | March 13th 05 07:07 AM |
35mm film vs digital | Conrad Weiler | Digital Photography | 49 | January 5th 05 05:01 AM |
Developing 35mm film into digital | Stuart Droker | Film & Labs | 1 | September 20th 04 04:15 PM |