Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Quality of digital vs film, was: Nice 300/2.8 E-1 Picture

Subject: [OM] Re: Quality of digital vs film, was: Nice 300/2.8 E-1 Picture
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 06:35:08 -0500
As it turns out these kinds of calculations just don't work out to what 
the eye sees as image quality.  For example, quoting from Norman Koren's 
tutorial on digital vs. film image quality:

"In Digital cameras vs. film, parts 1 and 2, we use the tools developed 
in earlier in the series to compare digital and film cameras, and we 
address the question, "How many pixels does it take for a digital sensor 
to outperform 35mm film?" The answer is less speculative than it used to 
be: The 11 megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds clearly outperforms 35mm. We also 
look at the rapid advances of digital sensor tecnology, which have made 
some digital cameras obsolete in a matter of months. The good news is 
that the advances are slowing down-- digital cameras are stabilizing and 
it has become safe to buy one without fear of rapid obsolescence (though 
obsolescence will still happen; just slower)."

See:
<http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html>
<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.shtml>

The key factor limiting performance is noise.  Grain for the film and 
electronic noise in the digital.  In digital, size matters.  Big pixels 
make noiseless images.  That's why the EOS-1Ds performs so well.

Chuck Norcutt
Woburn, Massachusetts, USA

Jim Brokaw wrote:

> I figure a 35mm frame at 4000 ppi scan is good for 4000 x 6000 = 24,000,000
> individual areas of information each of which can be red, blue, or green.
> Since the individual pixels on a digital image sensor are either red, blue,
> or green (usually two green for each red and blue) I think the equivalent
> information density is equivalent to a 24 megapixel image sensor. Probably
> someone can correct me on this, but I hope I got it right...
> 
> I think the best 35mm full-frame image sensor currently available yields
> about 14,000,000 pixels, so there is a ways to go to get the equivalent
> image. Now depending on what the film,lens, and techniques used is, there
> may be no information of value in some of those individual pixels (you may
> just be imaging the film grain, or be inside the lens's resolution limits,
> etc.) but the information is theoretically available. I think... I suppose
> its possible that a digital image at lower pixel density can look better, if
> each and every pixel is carrying useful information.


The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus 
List Problem"

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz