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.

"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.

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

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.

On 18-Nov-04 03:41:18, Gardner said
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.

I agree the size of the sensor is indicative of the camera's capabilities,
but in context with the O.P.'s question, if you are effectively measuring
the digital camera's resolution against a 35mm film camera, of primary
interest is the true non-interpolated images size you are getting - not
the measurements of the sensor, notwithstanding the implications you raise
in your first point. Your second point is valid, but a seperate issue to
that raised by the O.P.





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

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

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

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

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

On 2004-11-18, Douglas MacDonald wrote:
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

Is this an advertisement? Sounds like you selling something here.
Don't think most folk confuse genuine detail with fake interpolation.
No doubt your customers are impressed, and if they're happy you're
successful. For most people, if you make their images more dramatic,
they're happy, but that's probably not the case here.

Don't think folk here are impressed by being told what many hold true is
only myth. You make a lot of claims that may or may not be valid, but
it sounds like you're cherry picking your data to back up those claims.
If you think that the current lot of high resolution DSLRs are hype,
that's your privilege, but don't think others will buy that just because
you say so. Too many pros are already using the 1Ds where they used to
use medium format.

Not all photographic images become prints, though probably most do, at
least at some point. Some people are into straight photography only,
and are careful to reproduce only what they get, and some people always
manipulate their images. I suspect most people sometimes do one and
sometimes do the other, but I doubt they confuse the two. I know I
don't.

That said, no doubt you have a successful business, but I really doubt
folk here are willing to accept the standards of your customers as their
own.

Will D.