Film Size In Megapixels

On average, a 35mm film scan will give you an 18 Mpix worth of information. A bit more if you use b/w low sensitivity microfilm.
Mind you, you can always scan at higher density but you will only get bigger files without any more useful stuff.

>>3013028
>>110mm=16megapixels
>>APS=24 megapixels
>>35mm=35 megapixels

a 110 film frame is only 25% the size of a 135 frame.
an APS-H film frame only 60%.

So those figures make no sense.

Either way the size of the film grain determines how many "megapixels" your film has.
Higher ISO film has larger grains, so less detail.

To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.

>>3013042
I have never seen 35mm scan outside of BW test charts, maybe, that would resolve that kind of detail.

I think even just 10mpix is pushing it for most emulsions.

>>3013075
>most emulsions
Yeah, there is this:

http://www.adox.de/Media/cms20test.jpg

File: NewerScansForPFD.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013075

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:29 11:34:27
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-4.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5888
Image Height	3936
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3013085
>8000 DPI
Holy shit. Was this scanned with an X5 or something?

>>3013104
Not sure: http://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-films-2/cms-20-ii-adotech-ii/

>>3013075
this. does anyone actually use CMS 20 in the wild?

if you aren't drum scanning the finest small format films, or using large format, film can't beat a D810. normal 35mm film will be inferior to any 24mpix modern camera.

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

https://diglloyd.com/articles/GrabBag/photographic-film-was-not-much-of-a-performer.html

>>3013122

>This is what digiots actually believe

>>3013124
But is the truth. Your analog """megapixels""" are limited by the size of the grain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BfV0PEGP-Y

>>3013102
resize ur photo and read the sticky idiot

>>3013028
Why'y'll nigs even care, you gotta print to make any of this shit even matter. Fucking hell mates, pls.

>>3013122

I have used both and you're a fucking dolt if you actually believe a single 36x24 format digilol can touch 6x7.

>>3013151

Post some of your masterpieces.

File: sugar.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013157

>>3013122
I use CMS 20 pretty often, shoot around 5 rolls of 135 a year and a couple of rolls of 120. Shooting it in 4x5 is overkill, but I'm sure there are people out there that do.
It really is as great as people say it is and it's one of the only technical emulsions left. Those Adox guys really, really know their shit.

>>3013163
Do you have any examples readily available to post?
>>3013102
What film/dev/format/digitising means, btw? That really looks perfectly grainless.

>>3013167
It's 35mm Rollei Retro 80s in 1:50 Rodinal.
Scanned as per exif on an FD 50mm macro.

>>3013174
How do you scan your negatives? I just bought an old 55mm nikkor micro.

35mm film = 6MP
6x7 film = 18MP
4x5 film = 40MP
8x10 film = 100MP

>>3013229
This is not accurate. You can get scans off an Epson at above 8mp that look amazing.

>>3013229
>shitposting = PRICELESS

>>3013162
Haha

>>3013028
>Here we go:
Here we go indeed...

>>110mm=16megapixels
>>APS=24 megapixels
>>35mm=35 megapixels
>>127mm=40 megapixels
>>120mm=60 megapixels
>>4x5=525megapixels

Film resolution varies greatly depending on the film and the target contrast. But even assuming the highest resolution films your numbers are way too high for real world scenes. 35mm Velvia 50 on an Imacon struggles to match 16mp sensors (APS-C and FF). 35mm Provia 100F on an Imacon struggles to match 12mp sensors. Use a lesser emulsion or shoot in worse conditions (low light) and you're not getting 10mp.

You can't assign a number to 120 without specifying the film AND the format. But I can tell you that a 5Dsr will exceed Velvia 50 6x7 on an Imacon with a real world scene. Shoot a line chart under the brightest lighting you can create and Velvia will pull ahead, but that's not the real world.

4x5 suffers greater loses at the lens and film plane (flatness) than smaller formats so it can often be matched with MF digital systems.

>film's massive dymanic range will always change the factors of quality

"Film" does not have "massive" DR. Color neg films targeted at wedding/portrait shooters can have very good DR, but no better than modern sensors with on chip ADCs. Specially souped B&W film can still exceed digital DR, but most people don't shoot and process for that.

Something to keep in mind is that film's resolution is tied to DR. The highest resolution emulsions also have the lowest DR. You can shoot 35mm Portra and come close to modern FF DSLR's dynamic range. Or you can shoot 35mm Velvia and come close to the resolution (at the low end of FF DSLRs). But you can't do both.

Finally: I got a big laugh out of the 110 size rating. At 110 film size tonality severely breaks down. You don't have tonal transitions so much as you have bigger and smaller basketballs of grain. If you ever want a good laugh compare a 110 film scan to any m43 sensor ever made.

File: 17395744463_5e0626f412_b.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Who fucking cares?

>>3013260
Autism: The post.
More specifically.

>"Film" does not have "massive" DR. Color neg films targeted at wedding/portrait shooters can have very good DR
>but no better than modern sensors with on chip ADC
>Specially souped B&W film can still exceed digital DR
Absolutely fucking priceless.

Keep posting digiplebs. I'll never stop chuckling at your posts and misinformation, you guys are unironically the same as the Apple user crowd from 2003-2013.

>all these deluded digiplebs
>implying digital isnt limited by the size and amount of actual pixels and photosites, while film is fucking free to render detail and tonality down to molecular level

digiplebs cant into molecular photograhy at all, and i laugh at their sad lives of burnt highlights and algorithm guessed colors.

when photography was born it was already mature. big plates full of rich and pleasing detail. then came the convenience issue and they started making compromises, like making smaller formats, but still, film tonality is always there even if you shoot minuscule formats. just molecular things.

when digital was born they had these goofy contraptions of very low res and ass DR. then they started getting more of that. and adding more and more. then they killed CCD, because they hate nice things. then they ended with a flawed technology that thinks it can make up its shittiness just by getting "bigger". you dont get a nice chocolate cake if you pull together 2.000 little balls of shit, or 5.000, or 10.000. itll still be huge ball of shit.

File: 00RzhJ-103191584.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:01:03 22:32:02
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	983

35mm = Negative for Ants

>giving a fuck about resolution

Any newish digital camera is capable of great 8x10 prints. Any format of film 35mm and up is too. Who fucking cares.

>>3013344
Agreed.

I can't understand why someone would still shoot 35mm after trying medium format.
>muh 36 frames

>>3013371
pls dont troll, thread was pretty civil to this point.

File: Industrial_005.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013371
Because I can fit a 35mm camera in my pocket? I'm fucking loving the freedom of 35mm compared to shooting MF.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:28 22:07:13
Exposure Time	5 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	160
Brightness	-6.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Tungsten
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 96118be92d0a8f272f52253b6f4c1798.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013344
>>3013371
>mfw my walk around camera is a half frame

>>3013377

Photography is supposed to be a brutal medium, if you're comfortable then you're doing something wrong

File: superia200_2400dpi.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013028
>35mm=35 megapixels

That's a vast overestimation.
I scanned lots of different film through various means and I've never seen anything approaching D800 levels of detail on a single 35mm frame. Maybe B&W technical film can do that, but it's unusable for general photography.
Do note that it's very hard to compare film to digital as film resolution varies depending on contrast.
The best I've seen so far was Provia, probably a 20 MP equivalent at most, and that's expensive and slow slide film. Your run of the mill ISO 200 consumer film ceases to improve beyond 2400 dpi (unless you mistake grain for detail), that's 8 MP per frame. At higher sensitivities, it goes downhill fast - Superia 800 is already a mess at pixel level at 1600 dpi.

On the digital side, even cheapo micro4/3 cameras are now 20 MP and don't lose much quality up to ISO 800 at least.

>film's massive dymanic range
That's a meme. Film still has a gentler highlight roll-off, but modern digital has a big advantage in shadow detail. Expose correctly and you'll get more from digital - and if it's not enough, you can always try multi-shot techniques.

>>3013371
because some of my favorite films are not available for MF

>>3013260
At least there is one person in this thread that knows what he is talking about.

>>3013288
If he posted "misinformation" then by all means let's see your properly done test results to prove him wrong. But of course you won't have that.

>>3013427
More truth. But,
>The best I've seen so far was Provia
Are you sure you don't mean Velvia? Cause I don't believe you will get 20mp equiv out of Provia 35mm.

>photography
>photo
>literally has "light" on the name
>HURRZZ WHAT ABOUT MUH SHADOWZ

digislugs are surely sad.

Let's talk numbers here.

I've shot a (two stop contrast) test target on 4x5 TMAX100 through a Rodenstock APO Sironar S f/5.6.

The resolution figures for clearly distinguishable line pairs (somewhere between MTF30 and MTF50) and barely distinguishable line pairs (I guess MTF5) for the center and extreme corner of the frame were determined by taking pictures of these regions with a Nikon D810 and reversed Rodenstock APO-Rodagon N 50 2.8 on a 350 mm bellows which is roughly equal to a 25.000 dpi scan.

These were my results (for the center only):

f5.6: 110 lp/mm (clear), 130 lp/mm (barely)
f8: 100 lp/mm (clear), 120 lp/mm (barely)
f16: 85 lp/mm (clear), 95 lp/mm (barely)

A 4x5 frame is roughly 95x120 mm and you need two pixels for a pair of lines so this translates to 16150 x 20400 of clearly distinguishable pixels or 330 megapixels for f16.

Granted, you often use smaller apertures than this on large format which further reduces resolution. Also, at these magnifications grain is clearly visible and not every film is as sharp as TMAX100.

I'll be very pessimistic and divide my numbers by three, which still gives more than 100 megapixels for 4x5 with a good lens and film flatness.

>>3013377
Your argument is invalid.
There's plenty of folding MF cameras out there.

>>3013446
I guess they're shit then.

>>3013470
wow what a trollman.

>>3013459
I haven't had any Velvia brought to me yet. Maybe I just need to buy some and brush the dust off my film camera.
IIRC as far as resolution goes Provia isn't that much different from Velvia, it just has less saturation and contrast. And 20 MP is an upper estimate; the one roll I had wasn't shot with a particularly good lens so I'm giving it some benefit of the doubt.

File: 4021926024_06b5d8c6bc_z.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013470
>There's plenty of folding MF cameras

Even the smallest of these aren't really pocketable bruh.
And if you want a MF camera that's practical, you'll be looking at something like a Bessa III, which is like 2 pounds.

File: 1485460159277.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013470
>There's plenty of folding MF cameras
good, baitman, you look kinda cool

>>3013476
>>3013477
Still more pocketable than an SLR.

>>3013483
Nobody forces you to use a SLR for 35mm.

File: SSpdxSSR.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013476
My Agfa folding camera fits in my jackets pocket just fine.

>>3013470
you're shit

>>3013162
lol

>they will never be pictures quality of 525 megapixels anytime soon

Sensor sizes are doubling approximately every two years now.

36
72
144
288
576

10 years maximum. I reckon not even that.

File: 1380838052984.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013427 here
You know what really rustles my jimmies about film these days? The scanners.
10 years ago, $2k could buy me a crop DSLR with like 10 megapixels that was good to ISO 1600 at most, with an awful grainy screen and small buffer. Nowadays, for the same price I can get a 30+ MP full frame with 4 more stops of DR, I can get pro grade autofocus performance, etc. The progress is palpable. But film scanning? It's EXACTLY THE SAME SHIT as back then. 35mm scanners? Still take four minutes per frame at a good resolution, and those 15 megapixels you can extract from your carefully prepared Velvia aren't impressive anymore. You want medium format? Dedicated 120 scanners still exist, but cost as much as a Pentax K-1 which isn't that far off in resolution even without the HR mode, and take ten minutes per frame. Oh, and you probably want a full-featured version of SilverFast? That'll be 300 more bucks, thank you very much, and you can only use it with one scanner. You want even larger formats? Epson's top of the line flatbed still has the same max density, USB 2.0 and CCFL warmup time as ten years ago. Oh, and it still won't out-resolve drug store Superia. You've got tons of money? Yeah, I can finally sell you something that will beat any digital, check out this $20k Flextight that does anything up to 4x5. It's got blazing fast 60 MB per minute performance - a whopping 1 megabyte per second, boys, you know that shit's professional as FUCK. /rant

>>3013547
We're already at 36mp - so more like 6-7 years for pro level 500mp DSLRs.

File: Capken.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

According to ken 35mm = 175mp

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

>>3013552
>my car's engine redlines at 7k rpm
>final drive ratio in last gear is 1:3.5
>wheel circumference is 2 m
>whoo boy this shitbox can go 7000*60*2/3.5/1000 = 240 km/h

>>3013549
36 MP cameras already struggle to reach their peak resolution due to shake, shutter shock, AF inaccuracy and so on. I can't even imagine how bad it'll be at 500 MP.

(500 MP also allows you to make a print 8 feet wide that will have enough sharpness to be examined in super close up. Who would actually need that?)

>>3013558
I think Ken is talking about theoretical maximums.

>>3013570
It's a theoretical maximum that is completely irrelevant in real life, and I'm sure Ken knows that, he just loves posting hyperbolic shit too much.

At a 10:1 contrast ratio, Velvia is only rated at 80 lp/mm, and while each "film pixel" does represent RGB data, at near-grain level it'll be a fairly rough approximation of the actual scene color due to the randomness of discrete grains, so you can't just apply the same conversion factor you would do for Bayer vs Foveon.
So yeah, if you shoot high contrast test charts, you can get an equivalent of 100+ MP from a Velvia frame. In real life, you'd be lucky to get 20.

>>3013552
Total BS after the 87mp math

>>3013572
Im surprised people dont switch over to 120 MF film cameras - 35mm hasnt got much to offer anymore. Medium format can still give high res with the right scanners and the right glass. A decent hassy, Mamiya 7ii, AF645 or a wide Fuji GSW would knock the ass off any 35mm camera.

>>3013592
Most filmfags shoot film for its feel, not for its quality.
Also, a semi-decent scanner for 120 like PF120 costs over $1k.

>>3013592
>35mm hasnt got much to offer anymore.

what a retarded thing to say, jani.

>>3013548
Except in 2017 it's only drooling mongoloids that haven't switched to DSLR scanning.

File: kodakgold200_DSLRscan.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013617
You think I haven't done that? Yeah, DSLR scanning works great for 35mm slides and B&W negatives, especially in non flattened rolls, but I still haven't found a way to get consistent greens from C41 and lack of automated dust/scratch removal can be extremely annoying.
To get maximum resolution out of MF/LF, you have to stitch, which is very labor-intensive and I wouldn't do that for more than a few frames. (I guess nowadays I could use K-1 or E-M5II in high-res mode to get rid of stitching for MF at least, but I'm not sure what's the status of raw support for those)

File: 7580530904_cd70152842_k.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

lomography orca 100iso 110 film. Looks like a better scanner/camera lens would squeeze a bit more out of that.

>>3013603
35mm film is just for amateurs and street shooters now. No professionals use it anymore. Literally none.

The only exception is Terry Richardson - and he does it ironically for the low quality feel.

>>3013640
Well, if semi-decent iso100 b&w film can give you 10 MP per 35mm frame, surely a quarter of that frame should give you more than 1? Although that looks grainy as fuck.

File: kirklandsignature200_2400dpi.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

btw, does anybody know wtf is Kirkland Signature film?
Google search gives me trash bags, which is appropriate but not helpful

>>3013028
Wasn't the MF Velvia tested to be at 40MP max or something? that would mean around 20MP max for 35mm.

>>3013028
for me, 35mm color film feels more like under 12 megapixels. Even my 16 megapixel compact resolves so much better.

>>3013664
If 6x7 Velvia would be 40 MP as you say, then 35mm of the same would be about ~10mp, not 20.

>>3013716
It was probably 645, then it makes sense

File: 17658254742_5ba6e2fdf1_b.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013470
I owned a Mamiya 6 (if that counts as a folder), it was just as heavy and pretty much the same as taking my Bronica out. You cannot compare a folder to a compact 35mm in terms of portability.

I can LITERALLY keep a camera in my pocket all day. That's what pocketability means. There is no medium format camera that will fit in your pocket, unless you're some looser juggalo wearing JNCO jeans and face paint.

Shooting 35mm is great. Does pretty much any digital camera beat it in terms of quality? Sure, I don't give a damn though.

>>3013028
there are no pickles in film.

>>3013767
>circa FY 2016-17
>not being a juggalo
But srsly, a Konishiroku Pearl or Fuji GA are real comfy EDC cameras.

File: 003_fuji645.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013797
>GA645
>comfy edc camera

Do you by any chance use the original xbox to play games on the bus?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D100
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	895
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2013:03:12 11:28:02
Exposure Time	3 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Comment	(c)luis triguez
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	550
Image Height	367
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: hasselblad.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>D810
>2,7k
>5D mk 3
>2k
>sony full frame camera
>over 1k

BODY ONLY(will last only 4 years)
Lenses are expensive as fuck.
>hassy 500cm + 80mm 2.8
>2k
>mamiya 7
>2k
>mamiya rz67
>less than 1k
>fuji 6x9
>less than 1k

>epson scanner
>200 bucks
>better scanner
>800 bucks
(will last a decade)
I cannot see why an amateur would even consider a digital top end camera.

>>3013469
Film's resolution is strongly related to target contrast and line charts have contrast far above most fine detail in the real world.

Lines are also much more resistant to grain interference than real world fine detail. Texture in a model's skin is fine or small in all dimensions. A line on a chart is massive in one dimension.

There are online comparisons of real world scenes shot on 4x5 and MF digital and MF digital is damn close at 50mp. I imagine current 80mp and 100mp MF digital systems can match 4x5 detail and print sizes for all practical purposes.

>>3013547
35mm sensors won't be able to hit 500mp due to diffraction. They're going to go further than some believe due to gains at particular wavelengths and techniques to extract information from oversampling. But they won't get to 500.

Ken rockwell is wrong?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm

File: 1479402657031.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013841
No, never.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 10.0 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2016-12-19T15:43:47+10:00
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	561
Image Height	704

File: 17922230936_1fb9483477_b.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013827
You will NEVER get the quality a MF frame contains out of a $200 Epson shitbed. Unless you get a deal we're talking about $1k minimum for a scanner (Coolscan etc)...and even then the quality is probably on par with any of those digital options you mentioned. You need to start using drum scanners or the Hasselblad scanners to get the most out of 120 film.

The film argument of muh higher quality is dead (and I say this as a massive filmfag who shoots at least 2 rolls a week).

File: 1987_Toyota_Corolla_(AE82)_CS-X_Seca_liftback_(19497365838).jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013801
No, but I might use an OG Gameboy if I had any interest in a) playing video games or b) riding a bus, and it would probably be about the same size as the GA.
Aside from being a little boxier in the top corner with the viewfinder, it's no bigger than a DSLR, and still much shallower, thanks to no mirror and the lense not protruding from the body. It will happily fit into a satchel without being a big lumpy mess.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	003HV
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2013:12:13 12:04:12

>>3013873
You miss the point. Why would you scan a negative in the first place? To post on instashit?

>shoots at least 2 rolls a week
Quality =/= quantity
How are you not bankrupt yet? I shoot a roll of 35 a month and 1,2 rolls of MF in the best case scenario.

>>3013880
it's tough to learn when shooting so little. you're shooting maybe 50-60 frames a month.

if not scanning, then wet printing is alternative for seeing the images. this is very slow, and is an entirely different and challenging skill to learn.

together, and it's a painfully long and difficult road for someone to learn the art of photography.

>>3013880
>>3013882
>2017
>not shooting exclusively half frame

enjoy your nogainz.

File: 16656614084_8857c357db_b.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013880
>How are you not bankrupt yet?
I don't work minimum wage? A roll of film bought and deved costs me less than $10 (only $4-$5 for bw since I dev myself). I spend between $60-$120 a month on average. Nothing outrageous at all. Pretty damn cheap for a hobby. Hell, even my gym membership is $80/mo and I go to the cheapest one in town.

>>3013882
There's no need for expending so much film. I have a DSLR too for snapshits.

>>3013884
My olympus pen is broken, shutter is slow, overexposing the pictures.

>>3013885
I develop and print them myself too, but it is still expensive and even more if you live in a shitty third world country.

>>3013640
I've always loved how they have to include the orca pictured near the top.

But in all seriousness that's a good scan for 110.

>>3013889
>still expensive and even more if you live in a shitty third world country.
>bawww babby is unskilled and earns shit money

git gud then, film photo isnt the problem, your poorfag lazy ass is.

>>3013889
the guy who shoots 1-3 rolls a week spends about 1k a year on film photography.. that is a household yogurt budget for a year assuming 3 people eat 1 cheap yogurt a day. If you cant afford to spend 1k a year on your passion you are a fucking child.

>>3013827
> I cannot see why an amateur would even consider a digital top end camera.
Only a very casual amateur that barely shoots three shots a week or so maybe.

If you're a hobbyist and you take 100 photos every week, you know, just a bunch of photos on the weekend and the odd shots during the week, then those ~21k shots *easily* cost you over $5k even before you store them (space that costs rent implicitly, and maybe additional cost for albums etc.) if you went with 35mm film.

Much more for MF film, which is actually more like what you need to match the overall performance of a really good FF camera with a really good lens. If you just wanted an equivalent to 35mm film, that's only a APS-C or even MFT camera.

And you honestly might be shooting a lot more than this number of photos in reality.

Plus nobody says you couldn't have used the digital camera for 6 or 8 years if you were intent on actually spending a bit less. [High end digital cameras have a rated shutter life of 150-350k actuations or so.]

Basically, for just about every hobbyist who doesn't do film for the sake of the "experience" of developing film, digital is just better.

>>3013827
eh if you put it that way, i got my shitty 6x6 + 80mm 2.8 for less than $100. Film is expensive, developing is expensive, and above all, takes a ton of time to get the final image. You're also extremely limited on number of shots with MF, can't review the shot, and it's generally only for landscape/portraits (good luck with moving objects)

>>3013393
Muh dogma

>>3013827
(will only last 4 years)

Considering these cameras are rated at 200,000 or more shutter actuations, that would be 50,000 shots per year, which is incredibly unlikely unless you're a very busy photographer (work for all pay). And if you shoot that much, the cost for film would definitely well exceed the cost of a FF D-SLR and lenses.

Keep in mind also that MF cameras cost a small fortune back in the day, just like modern FF digital cameras do now. And while old TLR's might be far less expensive, a good outfit for something like a Hassie or Mamiya in good condition will cost you enough money that it's going to approach the cost of a FF digital outfit anyways.

>>3013941
$1k a year is an entire insurance premium, a cruise for two for a week, etc.

But sure, blow that all on film

>inb4 don't be poor lol
That is neither a fair nor realistic argument in the age of inflation and rising costs of just about fucking everything. Try telling it to someone who has to raise a family or pay off student loan debt, etc.

File: 1471305890032.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013946
>You're also extremely limited on number of shots with MF, can't review the shot, and it's generally only for landscape/portraits (good luck with moving objects)
G I T G U D
I
T

G
U
D

Fucking pleb. Captcha: Focus gibson

>>3013958
You forgot your trip, Robin.

File: 1480090491880 (1).jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3013963
>being a tripfag
>on a board like /p/

>>3013951
Why are you getting so mad at how others spend their earned money on things they love? lmao holy fuck you live a sad and bitter life

>>3013951
Well fuck, stop shitposting in film v digi threads and just shoot digi, and exploit all of those "advantages" you claim it has...

>>3013836
>Film's resolution is strongly related to target contrast and line charts have contrast far above most fine detail in the real world.

While I agree with your first statement, chart contrast is entirely up to you. You can print (or buy) half-stop line charts which are basically very light grey lines on white.

>Lines are also much more resistant to grain interference than real world fine detail. Texture in a model's skin is fine or small in all dimensions. A line on a chart is massive in one dimension.

The same goes for Bayer-interpolated images. On pixel level most digital cameras strongly suffer from interpolation artifcacts on some monochromatic fine structures (like foliage). It's a tradeoff, really. Either fine detail softly fades into grain on film or it abruptly turns into mud on digital.

>There are online comparisons of real world scenes shot on 4x5 and MF digital and MF digital is damn close at 50mp. I imagine current 80mp and 100mp MF digital systems can match 4x5 detail and print sizes for all practical purposes.

It's true that it's really difficult to get everything out of film. The best work done on this topic IMHO is the big camera comparison by Tim Parkin. They truly put a lot of effort into this.
He even agrees with your statement regarding print sizes and modern 80mp digital MF backs:

"OK - what do I think of all this after spending so long on it. Well, first things first; The IQ180 is the first digital camera that really competes with the best that film can manage. It has the resolution to compete with 4x5 and 8x10 for prints up to 30"x40" and, more importantly for me, it has the colour rendering to compete with negative film. In all respects it is a very highly desirable item. So I would say that if you have the money, either through the volume of work you do or personal reserves, then think about buying one of these. They will produce results that will cope with almost all jobs."

>>3013951
>$1k a year is an entire insurance premium, a cruise for two for a week, etc.

But I already have insurance and take a yearly month long trip broski.

>>3013969
Some of us shoot both but still cringe when someone else shitposts that 110 film has 9,001 megapixels.

>>3013880
>Why would you scan a negative in the first place?

To make a large print that actually shows the fine quality? Because the only other option is wet printing, which is arduous at poster sizes and easy to fuck up, so I doubt there's a single person on /p/ who does that.

>>3013967
>>3013969
This was my first post in the entire thread.

>>3013974
Cool.

File: MinoxC41enlarge.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

How many megapixels on a minox spy film?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2009:03:30 15:02:13
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	500

File: 19688865922_401052c7c6_o.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3014215
What film? :^)

This guy shot his Minox III with adox cms 20:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/max_aleshin/19688874622/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	Nikon COOLSCAN V ED
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1814
Image Height	1249
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	4000 dpi
Vertical Resolution	4000 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:07:14 21:43:27
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1716
Image Height	1249

>>3014212
>This was my first post in the entire thread.
>implying that changes anything
You're still a jealous, sad manchild kek

>>3014218
what the fuck. whats the neg size? 8x11? sheeeit

>>3014218
Holy shieeet! Is that a picture made with a minox camera? You can even read that russian thing.

>>3014228
when you zoom in on the tourist information signs you can see whatever digitising method this guy used bottomed out before the film's resolution, yiu can see the pixels limiting the legibility of the small text. My 35mm hp5 scans are way grainier/less detail-resolving than this thing goddomnot. meme adox cms 20 film really lives up to its name.

The only real resolution limiter for it or, say, collodion are the lenses themselves, whatever detail they're capable of resolving will get recorded.

>>3013592

My 35mm Contax Zeiss with a fixed lens from value village
>$12
Hassy body
> >$1k
Mamiya 7ii body
> >$1.5

>I don't understand why people still shoot 35mm

>>3014223
>sad manchild
He said, while shitposting on /p/..

>>3014230

how do you load the film, and what film should you use? im guessing it doesnt even have sprockets

>>3014234

>>3014239
Well I don't own a minox, only a 16mm kiev30, but the principle is identical: you have your sprocketless film strip attached on one side to the actuated spindle that advances it - and the rest of it coiled up loosely in the feeding cartridge - you load'em in a darkroom and can then handle them in normal light. Just you, tiny casettes and a thin fiddly bit of film in absolute darkness.

As for the film, obviously, whatever you want, with fine grained ones being favoured. Velvia 50 must look stunning in a 8x11mm minox.

>>3014250
how many photos you get out of a charge? a fucking lot right? i do that hand spooling and respooling in total darkness all the time, so no biggie.

i thought i was done with buying weird format cameras but... this one is tempting.

File: 15845256174_d842129419_o.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3014250
and hey, look at that! it does, that one russian guy really likes his minox cams a lot it seems, haha.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/max_aleshin/15845256174/in/photostream/

8x11mm Velvia 50 yo

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Nikon
Camera Model	Nikon COOLSCAN V ED
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1795
Image Height	1294
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	4000 dpi
Vertical Resolution	4000 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2015:02:08 02:01:35
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1795
Image Height	1294

>>3014253
tasty as fuck. impressionism tier. thats it. im getting one.

File: filmslitter.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3014252
Now a days they're made cutting 35mm so 36 exposures. Back in the day it was 50 exposures.

Did you watch an old spy movie?

>>3014255
thats pretty fucking cute.

why would it be 36 exposures if the frame is super tiny? should be at the very least 70 if taken horizontally. if vertical at least 90?

File: Anton_Orlov_Smallest_Tintype_Scale.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3014254
You'll still have to cut up your 35mm film into 8mm strips somehow (people make diy cutters with razors, wood, glue and DIY magicks) - 2×160cm strips from each roll, a fuckton of frames for a minox,

and then you'll have to dev the tiny bits of film somehow - minox made a custom dev tank for their cameras, you can find'em reasonably priced if that's your thing

,and lastly, you'll still have to somehow extract the image off the tiny tiny tiny frame. pictured here, a minox tintype portrait by some crazy guy, article featured on petapixel yadda yadda. the minoxes are extremely versatile, controls-wise, too. shutter speed selection putting some slrs to shame.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1195
Image Height	1600

>>3014218
Given how sharp that is, you can probably extract even more detail out of that. Adox lists some insane resolution figures for that film like 400 lp/mm.

>photo shot in bright sunlight
>motion blur on walking people
Well, that's ISO 25 film for you.

>>3014256
I don't know but this company sells portra and ektar and marks it as 36 exposures.

http://automat.bluemooncamera.com/index.php?route=product/category&path=60_61

>>3014257
You can develop it by wrapping the film arround a cilindrical stick in an spiral way and dive it in the developer.

>>3014260
must be a 15cm film strip. such jewry.

>>3014263
Kek
>buy a portra for 7 bucks
>sell many minox films for 20 bucks each

>>3014066
how big can you make a print with a condenser enlarger?
It seems to be a lost art nowadays

>>3014323
The condenser part of the enlarger stays the same regardless of print size (it only changes with negative size), and the main lens is essentially a reverse photographic camera that projects the image from film rather than onto film.
So theoretically, if you hang the enlarger head from the roof of a stadium and make the lens focus to near-infinity (since enlarger lenses are simple block-focusing ones, that's not hard to do), you can have a print the size of a football field - after a few days of exposure, that is, since exposure time increases with print area.

>>3014218
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/max_aleshin/19688874622/
das pretty cool mane

File: w2.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3014273
>>3014273
>sources decades obsolete minox cartridges
>skillfully performs the technical handwork required to slice and spool the film
>light, fingerprints, scratches will ruin the finished product
>makes available to an international market
Wow, kinda makes $20 seem pretty reasonable, you goddamn Jew.
>pic related, the cheapest you can buy portra in ausfailia

>>3014421
>paying others for doing something you could easily and effortlessly do yourself

Grease those capitalist wheels, you fat pig.

>>3014427
Well one of the great joys of being a capitalist pig is that I have plenty of lard to go around.
>keep homebrewing a sludgy weak version of the cheapest commercially available developer to soup the fucking foma you shoot in a zenit, you mangy communist cur

>>3014421
Shiet this is almost as expensive as my third world country.

>>3014437
na, western opressor, we're moving up to diy xtol as soon as I run some people's pan 400 from кoмяadэ ilford through a glorious praktica to have something to soup in it.
p.s. we don't talk about foma, it's a shameful subject back home.

>>3014401
i know. But what i mean is how large a print is practical and how expensive would the lens be to preserve resolution

>>3014486
>how large a print is practical

Depends mostly on what you can afford. Like, can you dedicate a 200 sq ft room for printing?
I guess the largest practical format would be something like 50"x70" since I don't think photo paper is sold in wider rolls.

>>3014525
sure, i have the room.
But how would a 50"x70" compare to a digital print?

>>3013067
At that point you're just looking at the film under a microscope.

>>3013946
95% of all skateboard photos were shot on MF for years, after Atiba bought a Hasselblad. He even shot 4x5 skateboarding for a while.

>>3013946
Which camera do you have?

>good luck with moving objects
Still possible, just use zone focusing. Also you can flash up to 1/500s if you have a leaf shutter camera.

File: Capture d’écran 2017-02-02 à 23.27.31.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3014257
Is that a good cheaper option?

who cares
film isn't about megapixels like digital, you shoot film for other reasons

>>3014273
Here in Brazil is worse
>Kodak only sells shit film
>People import Portra
>Sell each roll for 25 bucks

>>3014608
Speak for yourself.

One of the best things in photography for me is examining images for details I didn't notice when I was taking the shot. Not that I don't pay attention to framing etc., but I love really taking in what's going on, and having a fair amount of resolution helps me achieve that goal. if I didn't already find great satisfaction in my high resolution D-SLR I'd be on MF or LF film, and even then sometimes I still think about grabbing one of those systems one day.

File: Capture d’écran 2017-02-03 à 01.19.16.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3014610
Compre kodak pro image.

>captcha: nikon

>>3014617
>One of the best things in photography for me is examining images for details I didn't notice when I was taking the shot. Not that I don't pay attention to framing etc., but I love really taking in what's going on, and having a fair amount of resolution helps me achieve that goal.

photography is bigger than your autism, bro.

>>3014617
One of my great satisfations was finding a pic with a nip slip of one of my JB cousins after a day of shooting.

>>3014584
it takes 16mm film instead of 8, has almost double the frame size, a really decent lens, but compared to the minoxes, abysmal shutter speed selection. It's very cheap though. 10€ cheap.

There are a lot of higher end 16mm subminis west of the ex iron courtain though, the minolta 16 series for example, probably equally cheap - I can't really digitise the kiev's negatives properly anyway, if that's your thing, sure, look around for some better 16mm subminis first, but I swear by the kiev.

>>3014692
Teach me senpai. I just want an overall good camera that I can use.

Is the rollei 16 any good? Is the minox still better?

Can I make the 16mm film from 35?

>>3014638
Aqui não vende e eu não vou pagar mais de 20 conto pra queimar ProImage.

>>3014561
If it's a color print, it'll be worse because you have little control over tonality and color photo paper generally has lower contrast and saturation than a top quality inkjet print.
If it's B&W, then you could probably get more pleasant looking (not necessarily technically better) results, but I still doubt it's worth the effort.

>>3014785
im not really into the popular oversaturated look that is so popular now anyway

>>3015021
The point is that anything a big wet color print can do, a big inkjet print can do better. And probably cheaper too, given that you aren't likely to get the wet print right on the first try (or ten)

Photo paper has some advantages in B&W and at smaller sizes, especially in the case of contact prints, but poster-sized color images are basically the worst case for it.

>>3015102
il try to find a good deal on an enlarger and give it a shot with black and white.

>>3014639
Neither yours and your anti gear hive mind, dumbass. Go shoot snapshits on your 35mm film camera if it makes you feel better.

File: australia.png (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3014421
Cheapest place I have found film, this place is kinda close to me so I dont have to pay shipping. In Adelaide so idk about the rest of Aus but everywhere else I have seen sells portra for like $21

>>3015241
lofico.com does free shipping for orders over $80 though.
Is that atkins, you use?
Check their insta, it's like all of these hipster boutique labs shoot nothing but portra in a Contax 645 with an 80mm.

>>3015244
The place I linked is black&white photographics. Free shipping over $80 is good but I dont usually buy more than a couple rolls at a time so having somewhere relatively nearby is good for me.

>>3015102
what is photo paper called? All i find online is fucking inkjet paper

>>3015637
Photographic paper.

Search by brand.

>>3015645
can i just buy a chemical and make photographic paper myself?

>>3015637
The Jews can sell you some, look here
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/browse/Photographic-Enlarging-Paper/ci/574/N/4288586368

>>3015674
For B&W you definitely can, but only if you're going for "ye olde daguerreotype" look - you'll never achieve the uniformity of factory-made paper.

>>3015678
i wanna pump out cheap artsy hipster shit as cheaply as possible

>>3013064
That is right.
You also have to factor in the grain size for each given film. The sensors are merely the same size, and the resolutions are determined by the MPs at that dimension. Film grain fineness is usually associated with speed, the finer the grain the lower the ISO. Also the more resolution the film has.

File: micro-close-up-with-arrow-copy.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

Photographic films are dumbed down amateur convenient shorthands for what silver halide based imaging is capable of. This is a microdot mounted on a microscope slide, with a coin to scale.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON
Camera Model	COOLPIX L18
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	84 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2012:06:13 10:23:26
Exposure Time	1/239 sec
F-Number	f/4.1
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	13.73 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1929
Image Height	1233
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: dancer_d.jpg (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>3015778
And here is part of the image contained on it, through a microscope.
Source:
(These are really cool reads on their own):
http://blogs.loc.gov/picturethis/2012/06/caught-our-eyes-on-the-head-of-a-pin/
http://www.sites.hps.cam.ac.uk/whipple/explore/microscopes/microphotographs/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanhope_(optical_bijou)

So realistically, with microfilm-tier slow emulsions the single image detail retaining factor bottleneck present is the optical sharpness of the lens used.
This is of course autistic as we're confined to long exposures and monochrome images, but digital sensors also use pixel density/size tradeoffs to get good lowlight (α7s hello) capabilities. Film is shit compared to digital for versatility and most applied uses, but, again, abandoning most practicality and reason, tiny silver molecules outresolve tiny semiconductor devices any day of the [current year]. Unless you take a MF telephoto (do those exist?) and stitch. Or use a scanner modified into a LF camera. And have a terabyte or two of spare storage space lying around.

These cock measuring contests can go ad infinitum. Vague OP question breeds arguments. Film size but also specific film stock, yadda yadda.

>>3015782
>>3015788
>1/16" = 1.6mm diameter
>soft-ish image 700 pixels wide

I think this should be possible with the aforementioned Adox CMS if the 400 lp/mm figure is correct. And a lens pulled off a smartphone should resolve this much.

>>3015788
Well all we really need is panchromatically sensitised microfilm punched with perfect registration mounted in 3 vacuum backs arrayed behind a prism colour beamsplitter and a truly apochromatic lense, that's preferably very fast, like an Otus, to give us normal-ish exposure times and also avoid the diffraction blurring of having to shoot at f/4 on a Coastal Optics 60mm for example, then simply make carbon dye-transfer enlargements from your separations.
>we oneshot colour nao XD

>>3015803
Whoever inherited the Technicolor patents has already dispatched their hitmen to your location. And they're all contractually obligated to wear Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky masks while carrying out the assignment.

>>3013151
>if you aren't drum scanning the finest small format films, or using large format, film can't beat a D810.

Re-parse that sentence in your head again, he wrote it ambiguously but only one interpretation makes sense.

>>3013951
>has to raise a family or pay off student loan debt, etc.

>fucking your life up like that

all of my kek

>>3014610
Usando filme no Brasil, só pode ser masoquista.

>>3019780
>Ele não importa o próprio filme
>Ele não revela PB em casa

File: 1403117207608.jpg (319KB, 2541x1000px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 2541x1000px

>>3013229

>>3013260
>"Film" does not have "massive" DR
isn't it more that negative film will make bright stuff darker instead of clipping, rather than about numerical range?

>>3013874
>I might use an OG Gameboy
why the fuck wouldn't you use a pocket instead

>>3013942
>100 photos every week

File: drinkin.jpg (3MB, 1652x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1652x1600px

>>3013827
>>3013873
I get 17x22, 20x30 and 40x40 inch prints from my Hasselblad scanning on an Epson V700 at 2400DPI. I also don't give a fuck about the IQ difference between a digital MF and Portra 400. I use the film because it allows me to shoot in a different way, a different perspective. It really has changed a lot for me. My scans are adequete for online and 40x40s. If I had some gnarly large print to make, I'd probably have the money to drumscan from whoever is getting the print. Personally, I enjoy small prints. You can create a great dialogue with 8x10s.

Pic related, 400ISO 2400DPI on the V700.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Image Created	2015:11:28 15:49:15
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1652
Image Height	1600