Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 7, 2004, 12:30 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7
Default How good are digital pictures

Someone recommended me to take the online photography of Short Coures.com. I understood most of the facts but I think I need a good DC to really understand the values of Aperture and ISO's....

I read that the,
1) human eye is equivalent to 120 MP's
2) Film camera capture 20 MP's
3) Digital Camera's now has a 12 MP avatar...

So how is that you compare a 3 MP camera to,....a film camera. Will not there be a huge difference. Should'nt everyone just go for the 12MP cameras and if you cannot afford why not just go for a film roll camera... :?: :?:

It is just that in a place like India, you do not come across many DC and I do not want to take any chances...Thanks in advance,

PS: I own a 0.3 MP camera, so i really know the limits of a DC. It is a crap camera.
varun_me is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 7, 2004, 12:54 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 575
Default

A very important thing to remember about a digital camera is that the amount of captured resolution (megapixels) is by far really not a big determining factor of the overall quality of the camera.
I see 8"X10" prints all the time from 3mp digis, and they are every bit as nice as a shot from a film camera. In my opinion, good glass is just as important as good electronics.
Go to a local camera shop and snap off a few pics. Have them print you a sample so you can see for yourself. Remember, the most important person's opinion is your own, and the best way to formulate that is through expirience.
Gandalf065 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2004, 1:10 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 78
Default

Regardless of wether you use a "film" or "digital" camera things like aperture (lens opening) ISO ratings (sensitivity to light) composition etc. are going to be generally comparable with either. These are a few of the basic principals of photography that need to be learned and understood if you want to advance beyond being a snapshooter.
As far as resoloution is concerned the more resoloution you have in a digital camera the larger the print you can make. If you are not going to make large prints and the camera you're interested in has the features you want then going with a camera with less resoloution (megapixels) is perfectly ok. no camera is going to have the resolving power and the tonal range of the human eye, although digital gives you more options than the old fashioned darkroom to increase tonal range in your prints provided you know how to use your equipment both hardware and software. And herein lies the key... Knowing how YOUR equipment works and you learn that by using it.
Harleyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2004, 1:25 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 383
Default

That is pretty interesting about the human eye being 120 MPs. As far as the film goes I have heard and read similar rating of 20 MPs but that is usually under pristine conditions for 35mm film with a very low ISO rating of like 100 if I am remembering correctly. Very rarely achieved in the real world. I'll take my 300D over a film camera anytime. I won't give up the convenience of digital film and immediate gratification.
PKchopper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2004, 8:40 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I read an extensive and I thought very good analysis last year. They kept film completely in the photographic process and compared it to lab prints from digital. They felt the best consumer ASA 100 film was about equal to 6Mp and Fuji Provia close to 11Mp. That is just for resolution and they are comparing film to DSLR.

Film has more dynamic range than a DSLR so you get slightly richer looking prints. The smaller sensors in the so called prosumer digitals compete relative to their MP in resolution but not in noise and dynamic range. Most people’s computer screens show about 1Mp of pixels according to the resolution set. You can see the difference right away in pictures taken with a DSLR compared to a prosumer for most shots displayed at that 1Mp of the screen. It obviously isn’t the resolution shown at 1Mp, but the low noise and dynamic range that make the difference.

I imagine a pro who deals both in film and DSLR can see some dynamic range improvements in film kept completely within the photographic process compared to DSLR. Although it is probably not as great as the difference between a prosumer and a DSLR shot.

You lose a little when you convert film to digital with the best drum scanner. The 4000 PPI film scanner that most of us are likely to have if we still use some film is not quite as good as a drum scanner. On a 4000PPI film scanner ASA 100 film is about as good as a 5Mp prosumer digital in resolution although much nicer in dynamic range. Film scanners enhance grain and even ASA 100 film shows it.

Most people really into digital photography can look through the “post your photos” section and pick out the DSLR shots without reading what camera they are from. I have resisted DSLR but have to admit the difference is definitely there. Old pros could look at an 8 X 10 print and see the difference between 35mm and medium and large format film. There is obviously enough resolution to make an 8 X 10 in a fine-grained 35mm shot, but there is difference you can see in the prints.

What I’m working up to is that the eye sees more than detail and resolution. It is also very low noise and has great dynamic range. The best film and DSLR can’t completely match what you see and a prosumer digital camera with a noisy little chip is a good bit off the mark.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2004, 1:07 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default Re: How good are digital pictures

Quote:
Originally Posted by varun_me
...I read that the,
1) human eye is equivalent to 120 MP's
...
The 120Mpixel figure for the human eye is completly phony. The eye has the ability to resolve very fine detail, but over a very limited field of view. The 120 Mp number seems to be arived at by taking the finest detail that the eye can resolve and extending that over the entire FOV of the eye. That is not even close to the way the eye works. In addition, the eye has a blind spot where the nerve bundle passes. Contrary to what seems to be in just about every book, the eye is very bad model for a camera.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2004, 2:41 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default Re: How good are digital pictures

Quote:
Originally Posted by varun_me
So how is that you compare a 3 MP camera to,....a film camera
Because we compare features other than optical quality as well, and because choice depends on the intended use of the camera.

Some of these issues are discussed in the long thread near here at http://www.stevesforums.com/phpBB2/v...er=asc&start=0. There have been other extensive similar discussions as well, I think,

The most important points for me are....

1. The facility to view images on the spot and therefore retake them if necessary.

2. Getting away from the plague of dust, and the time involved in filmscanning, if digital editing is desired.
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2004, 4:17 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
CheckSix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 186
Default

The human eye also has 11 f stops.

And, in my opinion, you can't judge all digital cameras with a 0.3 MP. You ain't seen nothin' yet (Just kidding). :lol:
CheckSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2004, 8:12 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 438
Default Re: How good are digital pictures

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillDrew
Quote:
Originally Posted by varun_me
...I read that the,
1) human eye is equivalent to 120 MP's
...
The 120Mpixel figure for the human eye is completly phony. The eye has the ability to resolve very fine detail, but over a very limited field of view. The 120 Mp number seems to be arived at by taking the finest detail that the eye can resolve and extending that over the entire FOV of the eye. That is not even close to the way the eye works. In addition, the eye has a blind spot where the nerve bundle passes. Contrary to what seems to be in just about every book, the eye is very bad model for a camera.
Not only that. The eye is not nearly as sharp outside the very densely packed region of the retina that handles our very acute central vision. Peripheral vision is not nearly as good as central vision. Then there is the blind spot you already mentioned, and finally, the distribution of color sensors also differs in different regions of the retina. I have also read that there are more green sensors in the eye than blue and red. I don't know if digital camera sensors use the same number of sensors for each color.
luisr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 7, 2004, 9:49 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 575
Default

Actually, digis use more green censors than red or blue. It is in fact because the eye is more sensitive to green.
Gandalf065 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:50 AM.