Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #filmvsdigital more → 
Digital Cams Still Haven't Caught Up to Film's Resolution: Does it Matter?
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Danny Allen
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
| posts about #filmvsdigital more → |
Digital Cams Still Haven't Caught Up to Film's Resolution: Does it Matter? |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/18/09
But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that the level of detail captured by film still far outpaces that of digital cameras.
And think of it this way: You shoot a image in RAW today, but in the future you won't be able to further enhance it. What you see is what you get. Film negatives, being an analog source, scanned onto the computer are only limited by how good the scanner is- you scan the same negative twenty years from now, and you'll be able to pick out yet more detail from the negatives than if you scanned it today.
In a roundabout way, film cameras can be better digital cameras than real digital cameras this way, because the images you capture today can only be improved as scanning technology evolves.
07/18/09
A more reasonable comparison is 35mm which has an effective resolution of 3000 pixels per inch and since that's a diagonal measure, you're looking no MORE than 4500 x 3000 pixels.. and there's lots of digital cameras with that resolution and higher.
So for typical photography, we are at film equivalent resolution or higher.
With 8x10, the problem isn't resolution - it's sensor size. You'd need a huge sensor - just like with 8x10, you need a huge piece of film.
But with digital, it's actually more practical to take a whole bunch of photos of the scene at the highest res you can and then stitch them all together into one huge corrected panorama, something very difficult to do well with film.
07/18/09
Comparing resolution does not mean anything to a photographer. Seeing Pixels instead of grain does. Seeing the details in blacks does. Seeing a smooth transition from color to color does. I will shoot digital for a low paying magazine or album cover shoot, but when I shoot well paying work or my artwork there is no comparison. Plus, if you are a professional, you don't uses 35 very often, unless you shoot weddings. We tend to use medium format, which is 645, or 6x6 or 6x7. Those sizes are all roughly 2 to 4xs larger then 35mm. Digital on a professional level, does not compare.
07/19/09
Randon internet forum photographer's opinion < Annie Lebowitz
07/18/09
but the gigapixel sensor is coming one dude did that photostitch a while back ago of i think the grand canyon. at the rate at which digital technology is growing i expect in the next 10 years digital will be right there with the absolute best that film can do and then some on every single level. its already there for 35mm pretty much
07/18/09
07/18/09
It doesn't matter because chemical photography still exists.
Digital won't take it's place until the time is right, and that's just a waiting game on the numbers.
Chemical photography evolved too.
07/18/09
07/18/09