1080p Dilemma

Phil said:
Effectively, we're comparing capturing light on a 16mm^2 area (a mobile device) vs. 864mm^2 (35mm film or Fullframe). It's only logical that the latter will resolve a lot more detail.
Click to expand...
If it has more resolution per mm, a smaller sensor can resolve better detail (although optics will either make it harder or easier based on diffraction and stuff I don't know enough about). I don't know that digital sensor tech is there yet, but sensor size won't intrinsically limit resolving power. Also, film grain, the silver crystals, used to be larger than it is now, so older films will have lower resolving power, and faster films will have lore resolving power. So an old movie shot on film may not have more detail than 1080p.

[Which is why I'm quite skeptical that there are mobile phone devices that supposedly have 'good quality' for anything other than online sharing...
Click to expand...
What's wrong with this or this? They'd print just fine.

It has taken a long time for digital sensors to catch up to what film has been able to resolve, even at fullframe sensor sizes. And even if todays state-of-the-art fullframe sensors do a good job - it's still arguable if they have caught up in every sense - there are still other factors to just mere resolution, like colour depth for instance.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree, although there are arguments there. Early colour film was pretty crude, for example, even if it has more lines per inch than a modern 2k or 4k digital film.
 
London-boy said:
I also find it quite interesting that those still professing the superiority of film, are looking at those results on a computer monitor which means that the film picture went through a process of digital capture - scanned with unknown mediums and unknown quality settings. How can you compare two pictures like that? And if actually comparing a digital capture to a 'printed film capture' (How? With a magnifying lens?) then the quality of the print also comes into question.
Click to expand...

A digital capture from a digital camera is what you get and what it is. A capture on a 35mm film obviously needs to be scanned, so you obviously have a process which is limiting the comparison somewhat. But in this case, we aren't necessarely talking about the limitation of the film (the medium) but the process. I think the picture Cyan posted above shows nicely what can be resolved on a 35mm film (but not necessarely what the limit of that medium is). Those professing the superiority of film aren't doing it for no reason... (though those reasons are probably not relevant for most users and/or unless you are printing at very large sizes)



Shifty:

Shifty said:
What's wrong with this or this? They'd print just fine.
Click to expand...

They're not bad, but highlight quite a bit of noise considering the capture was already taken under optimal circumstances. Medium/low light shots usually show quite nicely why I don't rate the ability of mobile devices that highly...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And when you pull out the family photo album from the 80s, they'll be a blurry mess unless you shelled out on some decent lenses,
Click to expand...
I just did this and they are not (Polaroid instant camera)
 
Phil said:
Also, in regards to the comparison; The Kodac has a 50mm lens (2.0f) vs. the D3 with the 24-70mm (2.8f) nikkor lens. I assume he used the maximum focal length on the D3 and because the scan of the 35mm produced a higher resolution capture (5035 x 3339), he enlarged the D3 capture slightly to match it up to the digitalized scan of the Kodac. The D3 together with the 24-70mm is an excellent (and expensive) piece of kit, even by todays standards. A more recent comparison with a D810 might yield different results, but that would be comparing a 35mm film to a 36Mpixel camera.
Click to expand...

The D3 is an older camera but some of those older cameras are indeed still highly regarded. I do wish there was a film/digital comparison with the new king of the hill though, the Sony A7s. What's most interesting to me about the A7s and what ties it in nicely to this thread is that the A7s is new yet "only" 12 mp and yet it produces better quality images that most all other camera's out there currently, even those that have 24mp or 36mp sensors and even camera's like the much loved Canon Mark 3. Which just goes to show how it's not resolution, but the quality of each pixel that ultimately determines the winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top