How many pixels are there in a frame of 35mm film?

[manning]

For those who want to know.

I did two things when I came across this site.

1. Read it.

2. Took a couple aspirins.

http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html

 

[PaulD]

I read about two thirds of it...

He's all over the place. He never settles on a thought long enough to let it sink in before he's off in a totally different direction. It's like reading an outline.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

What he's saying may be true, but I've taken a product pic and for testing purposes I used Canon 10D (6.3 MP), Canon A2E (35mm with Fuji Reala), and a Bronica medium format (can't remember the film I used).

The 10D and Medium Format can be blown to 20"x30" no problem (Medium Format had the edge), but not the 35mm film. My personal conclusion: 6.3 MP offer more resolution than a 35 mm.

In a very similar situation, just before I sold my Bronica, I took another picture using 5D (12.8MP) vs the medium format. Enlarge it to 40"x60", without post processing, of course. Both came out blurry, but the 12.8MP camera yields far more acceptable result than the medium format. Hence I sold the medium format.

 

[boBQuincy]

It's like asking which has greater fidelity, CDs or vinyl records. The answer: neither, they are different.

Brad's data seems outdated and mostly theoretical. As far as I am concerned anything since the Canon 10D ( and maybe before that) is 'better' than film, at least for my photography. Less grain, more accurate color, greater dynamic range, on and on.

I have images taken at the same place with a film SLR using Kodak Royal Gold 100, and a D30. Printed at 16x20 the D30 image looks better.


boB

 

[PaulD]

As far as I am concerned anything since the Canon 10D ( and maybe before that) is 'better' than film, at least for my photography. Less grain, more accurate color, greater dynamic range, on and on.

I don't know if I'd go that far. Digital is better if you are scanning your film using a cheap scanner but if you are comparing print to print film still edges digital out in terms of dynamic range. I have found that in my line of work I now have to take two photos with digital when I would have only had to take one with film simply because my 10D cannot record as much information from light to dark. So I tend to lose things in the shadows when I expose for the highlights and vice versa. But I do agree that digital makes color a lot easier to manage and, honestly, I would never go back to film.