Resolution of digital cameras.

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by Dinosaur, Sep 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    How close are digital cameras to having the resolution of a good 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 single lens refelxe camera like the Hasselblad?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Non-digital film doesnt have pixels...unless you want to think of molecules as pixels.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. kevinalm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    993
    But film does have grain. The minimum resolution 'element' of film is a rather large clump of molecules, and the effective resolution depends on many factors, such as the particular chemistry used, the speed of the film, how the film is processed, and so forth.

    In general I would hazard a guess that the best digital cameras can rival film.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    How many pixels is that?
     
  8. kevinalm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    993
    I said it was just a guess.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I've heard that digital cameras are starting to replace film in professional applications, so the resolution has to be getting close.
     
  9. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    You can blow up a negative to any size you like, so film cameras are probably still used for large poster sized prints.

    There is also the question of speed. A 20 megapixel camera is going to be slower recording all that data before the next shot...esp. in RAW format.
     
  10. kevinalm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    993
    Ah, no. You can blow up a photo until the grain starts to show. Although since you rarely look at a poster from 10 inches away you could likely get away with it. But for the highest resolution photos they probably do use film, especially large oversized format cameras.
     
  11. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    I think I used to enlarge a square inch from part of a color transparency up to 11 by 16 and not be able to see anly loss of detail. That was circa 1955-1970. I suppose that film might be faster now, but with no more resolving power.

    I am certain that I used to enlarge a small part of a 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 transpaency up to 8 by 10.

    Can any of the digital cameras do that well? I asked this question due to seeing a lousy 8 by 10 photo made from a digital camera, which was probably not the best available.

    Are there any digital camers for use in a studio which produce a 5 by 7 or 8 by 10 image without enlarging from a smaller area ?
     
  12. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    Its more likely the fault of the printer.

    Seven or eight megapixels should give you enough detail for an excellent 8x10 print...as long as you have a high end printer using glossy paper.
     
  13. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    8 Megapix should be fine for large posters too.

    Unless you print it, 3 Mega does the job...
     
  14. catman529 Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    The printer, and the paper you are printing on, can mess up the quality of a digital image if it's not good enough. I don't know much about digital vs analog though, I just like taking pics with my 6 megapixel.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page