 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006Resolution of new DSLR
How far are we of getting large format equivalent resolution with DSLR? I would think the new generation of DLSR are at par with 35mm film but what about large format? Will we ever get there? -z > How far are we of getting large format equivalent resolution with DSLR? > > I would think the new generation of DLSR are at par with 35mm film but > what > about large format? Will we ever get there? Common opinion seems to be that 35 mm resolution has been surpassed by the late high-end stuff and that medium format resolution is now being seriously challenged. Very contentious issue, by the way. Film and digital show different kinds of artifacts ... some artifacts trouble some folks and others trouble others and the debate will probably never end. Large format has been challenged by this camera: Hasselblad H2D (according to Hasselblad). I'd love to get a H3D but @ $40k not too many people can justify one! What about something more like the Rebel Xti or Nikon D200 or D80 how do those compare in resolution to 35 film and large format? > > How far are we of getting large format equivalent resolution with DSLR? > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Large format has been challenged by this camera: Hasselblad H2D (according > to Hasselblad). > What about something more like the Rebel Xti or Nikon D200 or D80 how do > those compare in resolution to 35 film and large format? Consult groups.google.com for numerous endless discussions of this very topic. > How far are we of getting large format equivalent resolution with DSLR? The small-format lenses can't get anywhere near enough resolution in that small a size to do it. So, probably pretty far -- we'd need all new lenses. Even then, if the pixels got much smaller, we'd have problems with light sensitivity, noise, and diffraction. You already can't go below f/11 with the 10-12mp APS-C sensors without losing resolution.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > > How far are we of getting large format equivalent resolution with DSLR? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > sensitivity, noise, and diffraction. You already can't go below f/11 with > the 10-12mp APS-C sensors without losing resolution. Nonsense. The small-format lenses historically have been better than large-format lenses because they had to be in order to get at least some semblance of sharpness from small format film. View cameras typically have mediocre lenses. > > > How far are we of getting large format equivalent resolution with DSLR? > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > large-format lenses because they had to be in order to get at least > some semblance of sharpness from small format film. No he is right, note he said "resolution in that small a size.." The point is that a LF lens may not resolve as many line pairs /mm, but it they resolve far more line pairs across their image circle, and that is what matters when talking about total number of pixels. Scott > Nonsense. The small-format lenses historically have been better than > large-format lenses because they had to be in order to get at least > some semblance of sharpness from small format film. > > View cameras typically have mediocre lenses. Resolution within the small space, not absolute resolution. A small-format lens can't get the resolution that a large-format lens can get within the confines of the 35mm frame, despite having greater absolute resolution. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > How far are we of getting large format equivalent resolution with DSLR? > > I would think the new generation of DLSR are at par with 35mm film but what > about large format? Will we ever get there? > > -z There is more to image quality than just resolution between film and digital, including signal-to-noise ratio (much higher in digital), dynamic range (much higher in digital), and low light sensitivity (much higher in digital). This page discusses some of the issues: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html (be sure to read the AIQ section and not just look at Figure 1). One other thing that has become easy to do is digital mosaics. One can produce large images, challenging and even surpassing images from larger format cameras in many situations. e.g. http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics Roger > There is more to image quality than just resolution between > film and digital, including signal-to-noise ratio (much > higher in digital), dynamic range (much higher in digital), > and low light sensitivity (much higher in digital). Hey Roger, I have been thinking about a new metric for the quality of a capture device. The idea is to see how narrow of a black line on a white background can be imaged. Clearly most imaging devices will be able to get an image of a black line that is much narrower then their resolving power. The ability to get an image of a narrow line will depend on both the resolution of the capture system and the signal to noise ratio of it. A system that if very noisy might only be able to image a line that is 1/10 of its resolving limit but a system that has better S/N would be able to image a very much narrower line. I believe that this relates to a metric that you have written about where you take into account both resolution and S/N. But this does it all in one test. The result would then be something on the order of being able to image a line that is say 1/100,000 of the width of the total image. Either a set of lines of different widths or a line that tapers down could be used, and when comparing two image capture systems the resulting images could be view side by side. Clearly this test will not say all there is about the image quality of a given system but I do think it would be an interesting metric. Scott > How far are we of getting large format equivalent resolution with DSLR? > > I would think the new generation of DLSR are at par with 35mm film but what > about large format? Will we ever get there? I think it is going to be a long long time before you have something like an affordable DSLR that comes close to LF. Figure a LF camera is good for around 80 to 100 MP of good pixels, the increase in DSLR resolution has been getting slower so I don't think we will be getting there soon. If you did put 80MP on say a full frame 35mm DLSR you would need new lenses for it to make use of all that resolution. The truth is that are not that many people who are feeling the need for that kind of resolution, most pros don't need anywhere near 80MP. In fact much of the use of LF it to reduce the effects of gain on the final image more then the extra detail captured over say a MF camera. If you want to make large prints that are sharp you pretty much need to either use LF (maybe with a scanning back) or as Roger said stitch digital photos together. Scott > How far are we of getting large format equivalent resolution with > DSLR? DSLR? No. But there was a demonstration at Photokina by Rodenstock of a digital view camera with a 38 x 48mm image sensor. Very expensive now, but this is far more likely to be the future for very high-quality imaging. Andrew. New Hassy--39 Mpx, $40,000 Toby > How far are we of getting large format equivalent resolution with DSLR? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -z |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.