An Analog to Analogue..

[sabianq]

Analogue photography is a chemical film,
sure the light that hits the sensor buried in your camera is an analogue image, but that image is very quickly converted into a string of 1’s and 0’s and stored in a memory card located in the camera.

In the days of 35mm film, the film gauge representing an image area of 24mm x 36 mm captured images with a chemical resolution of about 150 lines per millimeter for the highest resolution film.
The large image area gives a narrow depth of field focus plane.
Having a larger image area allows for different avenues of creative latitude, as the image area gets bigger like in medium and large format film (or sensor) focus planes, the depth of field focus gets smaller and more time is needed to compose and focus shots.

I have always wanted to move into the digital field, but moving from a film format to a digital format usually means giving up the raw image size. With the high pixel densities of modern light sensors, it is easy to get the same resolution attributes of a chemical 35mm film but the smaller sensor size changes the behavior of the light in the final image. So what is the analog of analogue film?

Well, I spent may hours extending into days researching the perfect analogue to film. And currently, the only sensors that offer the same resolution and size format of the 35mm film medium are sensors that are 35mmx24mm or larger with a pixel density of 20million+ pixels.

I finally settled on the Canon 5d Mark 2 camera body. it has a 21.03 million image pixel full-frame 24mmx36mm CMOS sensor. The resolution is calculated to be at 5,616 x 3,744 pixels. So 5,616 pixels divided by 35mm equals 160 lines per millimeter horizontal and 3,744 pixels divided by 24 equals about 156 lines per millimeter vertical. However, I don’t think that this resolution also takes into account the fact that the film chemical molecule is light frequency independent, meaning that the same individual molecule can reflect different light frequencies giving the overall resolution of film al least 3 times (RGB) denser than a 20 megapixel sensor.

So the resolution is on par (sort of) with film and the image size is equal giving a digital full frame sensor the equivalent light play as a 35mm film format.

So what are your thoughts on sensor size and how does it impact your work.
Thanks

[CheaperKings]

Wait, what? I think all that info just fried my brain.

[zona5101]

at this stage of the game and probably for the foreseeable future, film rules. You can count megapixals till the cows come home but the cow will look better on film. Of course as all us DPS'ers know, there are advantages of digital that overpower the advantages of film otherwise this place would be called FPS - film photography school

[sabianq]

Originally Posted by zona5101

at this stage of the game and probably for the foreseeable future, film rules. You can count megapixals till the cows come home but the cow will look better on film. Of course as all us DPS'ers know, there are advantages of digital that overpower the advantages of film otherwise this place would be called FPS - film photography school

agreed,
there are huge advantages of digital over film.

i was shooting some night images the night and i had the naging feeling of the process being starkly different between film and digital.

it is very nice to have instant feedback with the ability to shoot and not waste film and money and time because of camera shake or miss focus or wrong exposure setting.

having instant confirmation is paramount to getting great images in a shorter time frame.

besides the fact that it is way cheaper, (even with a 3500.00 FF camera and top quality glass combination).

i remember some years where i spend nearly a thousand dollars on film and processing.. at least them days are gone.

[OsmosisStudios]

(Disclaimer: I shoot both film and digital, and both have their places. I still prefer the feel of film for certain things, but for most things I use digital)

Originally Posted by sabianq

I finally settled on the Canon 5d Mark 2 camera body. it has a 21.03 million image pixel full-frame 24mmx36mm CMOS sensor. The resolution is calculated to be at 5,616 x 3,744 pixels. So 5,616 pixels divided by 35mm equals 160 lines per millimeter horizontal and 3,744 pixels divided by 24 equals about 156 lines per millimeter vertical. However, I don’t think that this resolution also takes into account the fact that the film chemical molecule is light frequency independent, meaning that the same individual molecule can reflect different light frequencies giving the overall resolution of film al least 3 times (RGB) denser than a 20 megapixel sensor.

This is faulty logic. The 21mp resolution of 5,616x3,744 encompasses 3 channels (RGB). So saying that film has 3 times (because of RGB) denser resolution is patently false.

From a general perspective, a 15mp digital photo is about the same resolution is 35mm film. What's more important, in both mediums, isn't the resolution of the recording medium (film or sensor) but the resolution of the lens at that given aperture/focal length combination as well as the light and movement characteristics of both the camera and scene. These are what produces a better image.

[KansaiGreenie]

Hi sabianq,

I shot film for decades and resisted going digital for a long time, for a lot of reasons that basically boiled down to I was happy shooting film. Finally, my favorite film camera broke and I--kicking and screaming--moved to digital. That was three years ago and I haven't looked back. I think that I am happier now with digital for reasons that have nothing to do with the concerns that I had when I was using film. We can have the debate about the merits and demerits of both all day long. In my opinion, they are different medium and cannot be easily compared.

So what are your thoughts on sensor size and how does it impact your work.

I have two thoughts....

First, it depends on what you are going to do with the images. These days most of my work ends up online or on devices so the final size is between 600 to 1024 pixels (on the long side) with a resolution of between 72-150 ppi. Considering that, it doesn't matter what sensor size I use. All of my images end up being downsized. Even my iPhone gives me larger images with better resolution than I need and my APS-C sized sensor camera images are drastically cut down.

Second, having said that, my lenses behave differently on my APS-C sized camera than they did on the my 35 mm. Both the field of view (crop) and depth of field are different. It took me a while to get used to it, but now I don't have any real problems.

So whether or not you need a full frame or a crop sensor camera I think will depend on what you are going to do with the final images (I've gotten amazing A3 sized prints [roughly 11x16 inches] and larger from my APS-C sized cameras.) and how big of a learning curve you can deal with.

I hope that helps you

KG

[teaking]

Purely based on the fact film is analogue and there fore can represent curves better than on a pixel level like digital where even curves are clever lines film will usualy win when enlarging, due to the nature of the beast. I really dont think resolution how ever is a problem with modern cameras at the sizes most people want to print even at the largee end.

[LeeR]

Yesterday Canon annouced the development of a 120 megapixel sensor. Last month Kodak produced the last roll of my old favorite, Kodachrome. Unless you've had your head in the sand it should be obvious that all the new breakthroughs are in digital and film is going the way of the horse and buggy. What is certain is this: there is a big learning curve that comes with shooting digital and the longer you wait to make your move the steeper that curve is going to be. Oh, and you don't need the mac-daddy Canon to get started, either. While the top of the line Canon is an excellent tool in the hands of a pro, you'd be amazed at what you can do with half that many megapixels. Hold on to film as long as you like, no one is going to make you change, but in the meantime you need to get up to speed on the new technology. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised when you do.