When taking pictures with film, which level of digital camera has the highest negative resolution?

The resolution of film is molecular level, which can be magnified almost infinitely in theory, but it is theoretically impossible in practical use.

Digital cameras produce noise, and films produce particles. Like noise, particles will affect the image quality. The production of film particles is directly related to the development conditions. Under most developing conditions, 100 degree 135 film can be placed in 14 inch, and the developing effect is particularly good, and it can be placed in 18-20 inch.

Some people say that 135 film is equivalent to 6 million pixels, others say100000, and still others say 20 million. These figures are correct. Because of different light sensitivity and different washing conditions, the conclusion may be that there is sky on the ground, which is very different. In addition, if the film is converted into digital, the conditions of scanning or electrical division are also very important.

I sometimes develop black and white film. If I want to reduce the granularity, I don't set it to 20 degrees, but 18- 19 degrees. I choose to wash the dishes and stir them once every 10 second. The potion will choose d23. The film particles developed in this way are very fine, of course, the contrast is also low, and the large aperture is very beautiful, and the release effect is quite good.

Talking about the resolution of film, the factors that affect it are lens quality, optimal aperture, camera exposure combination, film sensitivity, selection of washing liquid type, liquid temperature, liquid freshness, washing time, selection of photographic paper, enlargement size, selection of scanning instrument, etc. One of the most important points is the development conditions. If you can, find a high-end photo agency and say that the development and printing shop at your door, whether Kodak or Fuji, can't guarantee the development quality. This is different from developing black and white film by myself. I changed all the slightly important movie potions one by one. Can the development shop handle this? The potion is running out, just rinse it. Those friends who say 6 million pixels, please send the film to some famous photo agencies in Beijing to try, and make sure to eat a catty.

Now put on movies, more black and white. Put it on yourself. If Kodak film is used, the washing liquid produced by Kodak is better than its own d76. One big bottle is enough for many rolls.

The most comfortable way to play is 8x 10 direct impression. The size of the negative is the size of the photo, and the quality and texture of the photo are completely beyond the digital comparison. Pick up the magnifying glass and you can savor it.

Movies are still very interesting. Very interesting.

When taking pictures with film, which level of digital camera has the highest negative resolution?

Hasselblad medium format camera, 10 years ago, 50 million pixels was about 200,000. Today, the Hasselblad camera with a pixel of/kloc-0.0 million is 380 thousand, which is much more expensive than taking pictures with film. However, why don't commercial photography take lower-cost photos?

Hello, there are many sizes of films, such as 35mm film and 120 film. Let me be specific:

1.8x 10 film resolution, if it includes not only film.

The resolution of 8x 10 film is actually equivalent to1-2 million pixels.

It is not that the resolution of the film is only1-2 million pixels, but the lens resolution of the 8x 10 camera is not high enough.

If it is printed film, the resolution is really amazing, and the printed film is bigger. A4A3 is not a problem at all. There is a print film as big as People's Daily, with 4000dpi output. You can imagine if the resolution is several billion pixels.

But 8x 10 film camera is not a laser imagesetter for printing film.

8x 10 film camera, the resolution of the lens is too poor, so the actual resolution that can be finally obtained is only 1-2 pixels.

If this 8x 10 film is output in black and white by a laser imagesetter, 100000 pixels is easy.

Second, the highest resolution film and camera in the world is microfilm used in libraries.

If microfilm and micro-camera are used, it will be converted into 35mm film, which is equivalent to the resolution of up to 40-50 million pixels. Of course, you have to use top-class micro-movies, micro-cameras and micro-lenses.

However, whether it is a laser imagesetter, microfilm or microlens, it has the highest resolution only for objects in Gao Fancha. If it is a normal object with rich light and dark levels and rich color levels, the resolution is very low.

For example, laser imagesetter or color film and television can print black and white text with resolution of 4000dpi, but it is difficult to print color photos with resolution of 300dpi.

Thirdly, if it is photographic film, camera and lens, it is really a pity that the resolution is very low.

35mm film, camera, lens and sky are the resolution level of100000 pixel digital camera.

120 The resolution level of standard film, camera, lens and sky is 50 million pixel digital camera.

You can think about it. Is commercial photography demanding enough? However, why did Hasselblad and Freescale eliminate Hasselblad's 120 camera when the digital back of the medium format is only over 20 million pixels?

This question, as long as you think about why, the conclusion is not difficult to come out.

In 2004, a Hasselblad or Freescale with more than 20 million pixels was about100000.

In 2004, a Hasselblad camera with 120 film cost tens of thousands of dollars.

For commercial photography, 120 film has always been used, and the cost of film is not the biggest problem.

At that time, shooting a film of 120, plus the development fee, was only 70 or 80 yuan at most.

Do you really think that movies can't afford the commercials of the world's top 500 companies?

The most common 35mm color film, whether Kodak or Fuji, is normally developed and scanned, and the sky is equivalent to a 6-megapixel digital SLR camera.

So the most fundamental thing is that the resolution of the film is too poor.

Not to mention, Hasselblad Freescale's medium format digital camera has 50 million pixels.

Compared with Hasselblad's 50 megapixel camera, does Hasselblad's 120 camera really have an advantage?

Think about it, Hasselblad's 50-megapixel camera 10 was about 200,000 years ago, and the use cost is much more expensive than 120 film, right?

What's more, the depreciation cost of digital cameras is very high and the depreciation speed is very fast.

To sum up, as long as you think about the historical process of Hasselblad digital camera replacing Hasselblad 120 camera with your toes, it is easy to draw a conclusion.

Funny, the film is a chemical silver salt photosensitive particle, which is extremely small and needs a microscope to watch. In theory, as long as your lens resolution is in place, the film resolution can be followed up indefinitely; In addition, the latex coating of the film is thick, and the film is exposed layer by layer in the process of physical exposure, which greatly increases the tolerance, has distinct layers and is more beautiful and natural. This is something that digital can never have, that is to say, the problem of digital taste! Therefore, artists should use film when pursuing the bearing value of photos themselves! And news and commercial markets should use numbers, because it is convenient to spread! Therefore, two systems should be established in the future, such as high-end art landscape photography. If you want to auction, it must be a film work, and the copyright purchase can involve the original film! And business news must be digital!

How many pixels is this movie equivalent to? People began to discuss this issue as early as the birth of digital cameras, and 10 ended many years ago. I don't know why someone is discussing it recently.

About 10 years ago, China Photography published a comparative experiment. Because of the long time, I wrote something from memory. I would appreciate it if someone could find the original.

The contrast is medium format film machine, full film machine and full digital camera. The method of comparative test is to shoot the same building with the best aperture of bull lens with the same focal length, print large photos with the best commercial technology, and see the details on the final film.

The conclusion is that for the 24 million digital full-frame camera, the medium-format camera barely meets the challenge, and the all-film camera is a fiasco.

If I remember correctly, both models are from Nikon.

Since then, almost no one is talking about the resolution of the film machine, only about feeling, taste and nostalgia.

It is meaningless to talk about only one film case. Just like the abacus gods of the past, no matter how clever they are, they can't handle computers.

This comparison is meaningless. Film is non-polarity sensitive, and numbers are grid pixels. When recording, the layer has fallen off, and the picture quality is absolutely different. It is meaningless to put the concept of pixels on film.

There is no pixel problem in the film. Pixel is a parameter of digital photography and a new term after the appearance of electronic images.

Film is coated with emulsion on the film base, and the photosensitive components in emulsion are composed of molecules. Its molecular weight can be said to be astronomical, even if the image is magnified tens of thousands of times, it is difficult to see its figure. For example, when the 35mm film image is projected on a huge movie screen, the small film is magnified to an amazing multiple, but when we watch the movie, we still feel that the image is delicate and rich in layers, and we will not feel the existence of latex particles.

The molecular weight in film emulsion is astronomical, why can digital photography achieve the effect of film with only 10 million pixels?

This is because our eyes have limited ability to recognize the clarity of images. As long as the image density reaches a certain amount, it can meet the sensory requirements of our eyes for clarity. Judging from the number of pixels in digital photography, if it reaches 6.5438+million pixels, the image we see will be as clear as film. Now the digital cameras sold in the market are all more than 20 million pixels, which can fully meet the requirements of clear images. Therefore, the pixels of digital cameras are no longer the focus of technical attention, and there is no need to pursue high pixels when using cameras.

Summary:

Compared with pixels, digital cameras can't compare with film, but digital photography is better than image quality. Because digital photography technology is more advanced, it is very easy to take high-quality images. However, film photography has to go through exposure, development, amplification and other links, and one link is inaccurate, which will affect the final quality of the image.

The film uses chemical emulsion, while the digital image sensor uses electronic components with physical properties. Although these two substances are used to make photos, they are essentially different. It can't be compared in pixels, and it is also very different in technology.

Film imaging, its resolution and digital imaging resolution, concept (defined items and scope) are different.

The most typical resolution test method in the film era is to shoot grating images. This is not the resolution of the film itself, but the resolution of the lens.

Digital resolution is actually the resolution of imaging. Obviously, the resolution of digital imaging is lower than that of lens.

Therefore, I personally think that the resolution of film is much higher than that of digital imaging.

About 24 million pixels. The resolution of the film depends on extremely fine chemical groups, and the finer the large chemical groups, the finer the film. 135 film 36mm 24mm, in the past, the film was generally 70~90 points (mm), and 100 point was extremely fine. 3600 2400=864000。 At present, the digital tricolor is arranged on the same plane, and the number of X3 is less than 26 million. Since the green photosensitive element accounts for 50%, if the dot number is appropriately reduced, the recognition of 20 million to 24 million is equivalent to the best effect of the film. Of course, there are countless finer particles in the film, which are generally not counted in the resolution. The fineness of large particles determines the resolution of the film.

Film has no pixel light amplification, as long as the hardware supports it, it can be infinite! [Cool drag]

Film is like a vector diagram, and numbers are like a bitmap. The principles of the two are different, so we can't compare them directly, we can only compare them. If the imaging quality is the best, the film negative is fine enough, the digital photosensitive element is the best, and the film is stronger than the digital one. Film amplification requires high environment and light, and digital amplification is simple. Ps can directly change the size of canvas. When I say film enlargement, I mean using traditional methods instead of scanning the film and editing it. There is no essential difference between this and numbers. There are several ways to improve the clarity of film photography, such as shooting with small aperture, increasing film particle density, increasing film size, shooting under strong light and so on. The purpose is to fully expose silver ions and increase the level, which is extremely demanding. Digital to increase clarity can only be replaced by larger and denser photosensitive elements. Too much power consumption makes it difficult to dissipate heat. Higher density requires continuous improvement of industrial level and high cost. This is not something you can do if you want to.