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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
1Ds MkII
I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the
equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there. Opinions/comments? Will D. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Will D." wrote in :
I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there. Opinions/comments? Will D. I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of the imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of the 35mm. Obviously the pixel count helps, though. And of course, I am open to correction. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The (computed) maximum resolution of original EOD 1Ds 11 Mpx sensor was 56 lp/mm. With the EOS 1Ds MkII 16.6 MPx sensor, this is increased to 69 lp/mm. The "actual" resolution of these sensors is probably less than that. The resolution of 35mm film goes less than 50 lp/mm (for consumer grade negative colour film) - to well beyond 100 lp/mm (for fine grain pro b&w stock). This means that while both cameras' sensors outperform /consumer/ film, digital still may need more megapixels than the 1Ds MkII offers, before it can match the resolution of the best pro films What is your source for that info? I would like to learn more. Also, lp/mm? Lines per mm? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On 17-Nov-04 12:17:11, Nunnya Bizniss said
"Will D." wrote in : I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there. Opinions/comments? Will D. I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of the imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of the 35mm. Obviously the pixel count helps, though. And of course, I am open to correction. It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how densely populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the resolution/image size. Does that sound reasonable? All the best, Angus Manwaring. (for e-mail remove ANTISPEM) I need your memories for the Amiga Games Database: A collection of Amiga Game reviews by Amiga players http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/AGDB/AGDB.html |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-11-17, Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
Ron Lacey writes: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:17:11 -0600, Nunnya Bizniss I was under the impression that it was more related to the size of the imagine chip, being approx 24x36mm which is the frame size of the 35mm. The original 1Ds was also had a full frame 35mm chip. I suspect at 16mp the resolution of all practical purposes is very close to film. The (computed) maximum resolution of original EOD 1Ds 11 Mpx sensor was 56 lp/mm. With the EOS 1Ds MkII 16.6 MPx sensor, this is increased to 69 lp/mm. The "actual" resolution of these sensors is probably less than that. The resolution of 35mm film goes less than 50 lp/mm (for consumer grade negative colour film) - to well beyond 100 lp/mm (for fine grain pro b&w stock). This means that while both cameras' sensors outperform /consumer/ film, digital still may need more megapixels than the 1Ds MkII offers, before it can match the resolution of the best pro films Sounds about right, IIRC. I suspect the upper limits are more theoretical than practical, tho. Difference between laboratory test results and what one can get in the field is the reality check here. The finest grain film with the most expensive equipment still needs technique most pros don't use outside the studio, AFAIK. So what's the street price on the old 1Ds now? Will D. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article .co.uk,
"Angus Manwaring" writes: It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how densely populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the resolution/image size. No, physical size is important: (1) big sensor - big photo-sites which are more sensitive and are less affected by noise. (2) big sensor - low/no "multiplication factor" so your wide angle lens is really wide-angle. ================================================== ========== Gardner Buchanan Ottawa, ON FreeBSD: Where you want to go. Today. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Will D. wrote:
I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there. Opinions/comments? Will D. All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly not for quality DSLR sensors. The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in enlarging digital images. I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and what I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the electric growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints made by others doing the same thing. 35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or enlarging through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as cleanly or as big as a digital image. Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has around 30% noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except to degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image with a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or picture being the only truly valid comparison. What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a 35mm image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to make a print and it was that print which became the photograph. When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need to be printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed previous boundaries of film. Douglas |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Douglas, I find this interesting because I work in a printing environment
and have a large format color plotter available to me and was wondering how many megapixels are really necessary to get a clean 24"x36" print. I have printed a decent (a bit grainy but no jaggies) 18"x24" print from my Sony Mavica that has less than 1 megapixel. Thanks for the info. Jeff G. "Douglas MacDonald" wrote in message ... Will D. wrote: I remember hearing the opinion that 16Mp was approximately the equivalent of 35mm film. If so, Canon's there. Opinions/comments? Will D. All the previous posts carry with them the myth that all you can do with a digital image is print it at it's initial resolution. This may be (almost) correct for cheap sensors recording lots of noise but certainly not for quality DSLR sensors. The process of enlarging digital images is called "Interpolation". This is the digital version of the old optical enlargers. My business operates a digital print lab in Australia which specialises in enlarging digital images. I regularly enlarge 4, 5 and 6 Megapixel images to poster prints 24" x 30" and 36" with absolutely stunning results. At least one of the responders to this thread seems to think the process is flawed and what I do for a living cannot be done. Odd that, considering the electric growth of my business in a rural region and the number of prints made by others doing the same thing. 35mm film has a number of issues when converting to digital or enlarging through diffused light and simply put, cannot be enlarged as cleanly or as big as a digital image. Digital images are nearly pure data. A scanned 35mm image has around 30% noise (some as much as 60%) which has no value on the image except to degrade it so... The attempts to compare a 8 or 16 Megapixel image with a film image are all invalid by virtue of the finished print or picture being the only truly valid comparison. What I would like to hear is the purpose a 16 Megapixel image or a 35mm image will serve. I always thought the purpose of a negative was to make a print and it was that print which became the photograph. When you consider a digital image, really it is just an electronic negative (or positive). For it to become a photograph it too need to be printed. It is the final print which matters, not the medium it is produced from, therefore... I offer the suggestion that at 4 (four) mega pixels, full frame DSLR cameras exceeded the (printable) resolution 35mm film could be usefully printed at and now, all the additional pixels do is bolster the advertising as true professional digital camera reach and exceed previous boundaries of film. Douglas |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Angus Manwaring wrote:
[] It seems to me that the size of the chip is irrelevant, its how densely populated it is with photo sites that matters, ie the resolution/image size. Does that sound reasonable? No, a smaller chip (in addition to the sensitivity issues) requires close tolerance in the optics and is more susceptible to diffraction limited effects, reducing the available aperture range. A bigger chip makes achieving the actual resolution of the chip achievable. (Having said that, the anti-alias filter should limit the chip resolution to half the sampling frequency in any case). David |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
BlackOps wrote:
Douglas, I find this interesting because I work in a printing environment and have a large format color plotter available to me and was wondering how many megapixels are really necessary to get a clean 24"x36" print. I have printed a decent (a bit grainy but no jaggies) 18"x24" print from my Sony Mavica that has less than 1 megapixel. Thanks for the info. Jeff G. My very best prints (they look as good at 24x36 as they do at 8x12) are about 170MB, .psd, Photoshop files. I have some 80 Mb PSD files which look pretty good too. All of them originated from a 10D and 20D with good glass. I guess if you saved them as jpg files, you might get them down to 60% of that size without noticeable loss of detail. I use a 6 colour HP designjet but the Epson's and nova's are not too bad either. The software you use to get the image up to size will dictate how good it is. Some people advocate Fred Miranda's 'stair interpolation' action but in practice it has many limitations. The software I use alters some parts of the image to vector and others it leaves as bitmap. It cost an arm and a leg but it gets the results! Douglas |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
20D vs 1D mkII | you know who maybe | Digital Photography | 9 | November 15th 04 08:52 PM |
Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview - MF encroachment | Alan Browne | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 110 | October 6th 04 05:09 PM |
Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview - MF encroachment | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 105 | October 6th 04 05:09 PM |
10d mkII will be released in Sept | david smith | Digital Photography | 68 | August 6th 04 05:26 AM |
new 10d mkII with 1.3x sensor | david Smith | Digital Photography | 56 | July 6th 04 04:25 AM |