查看完整版本: 一千萬像素的數碼相機比得上傳綂的膠片相機嗎？

一千萬像素的數碼相機比得上傳綂的膠片相機嗎？

我系講曬出黎的效果來比較。

[quote]原帖由 [i]3dmax[/i] 於 2007-11-16 09:46 發表
我系講曬出黎的效果來比較。 [/quote]

如果以像數計算...
35MM菲林像數過億！

我覺得比不過...
傳統的相機 以前整出黎 係真既FOR 影相...
數碼相機..無論你幾高像素...佢既出現係因為它的方便...
實際影相 都係用傳統相機 影出來的比較令..
否則為何記者或攝影師不用數碼相機來 拍照呢?

[quote]原帖由 [i]kevin517[/i] 於 2007-11-18 19:59 發表
否則為何記者或攝影師不用數碼相機來 拍照呢? [/quote]

宜家d專業攝影師(非藝術家)邊仲有人用菲林機?

時裝/studio攝影主要用hassel菲林機背上加數碼attachment, 有好多仲會改用全數碼hassel, H2有effective 39mp...

[url]http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/2788/Camera_Backs_Accessories_Digital_Backs.html[/url]

好少人仲會浪費時間喺黑房晒相.

還有呢,容易立刻放到電腦去修改.

Digital photo tking is much more environmental friendly and economical!

稍嫌有"超銳利"之感:L

most of the professional use digital now la wor...

[quote]原帖由 [i]kevin517[/i] 於 2007-11-18 19:59 發表
否則為何記者或攝影師不用數碼相機來 拍照呢? [/quote]

我曾經0係一個體育比賽做helper
我0係記者房做阿四
一日對住十幾二十個記者

都唔見有一個拎住菲林機

[quote]原帖由 [i]khadafy[/i] 於 2007-11-17 18:30 發表


如果以像數計算...
35MM菲林像數過億！ [/quote]

乜原來菲林機像數咁高架?:L

就算digital真係做到咁高像素
立體感，層次感係爭好遠~
除非有新sensor...呢個係ccd/cmos本身既問題

[quote]原帖由 [i]kevin517[/i] 於 2007-11-18 19:59 發表
否則為何記者或攝影師不用數碼相機來 拍照呢? [/quote]

哈~~無攝記用菲林架喇~~

*** 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽 ***

奇實現在還有人用菲林機黎影相,

因為數碼相還未能將相放到極大的
如第日有4X5數碼背以上就唔同！
不過可能是天文數字的價錢！

[[i] 本帖最後由 khadafy 於 2007-12-19 12:28 編輯 [/i]]

[quote]原帖由 [i]khadafy[/i] 於 2007-12-19 12:25 發表
奇實現在還有人用菲林機黎影相,

因為數碼相還未能將相放到極大的
如第日有4X5數碼背以上就唔同！
不過可能是天文數字的價錢！ [/quote]

各 大 廣 告 公 司 出 緊 D 大 poster 用 左 Digital Camera 影 好 耐.... :quiet:
我 last 果 次 用 8x10 菲 林 以 經 係 N 年 前 :help:

[quote]原帖由 [i]Jeff9394[/i] 於 2007-12-19 18:34 發表


各 大 廣 告 公 司 出 緊 D 大 poster 用 左 Digital Camera 影 好 耐.... :quiet:
我 last 果 次 用 8x10 菲 林 以 經 係 N 年 前 :help: [/quote]

Jeff9394兄講果 D 係咪120背數碼相呢？

係 如 Sinar 同  Kodak 果 個 背
家 下 多 數 一 張 相 分 好 多 次 影
之 後 先 係 photoshop 慢 慢 玩

[quote]原帖由 [i]Jeff9394[/i] 於 2007-12-20 15:28 發表
係 如 Sinar 同  Kodak 果 個 背
家 下 多 數 一 張 相 分 好 多 次 影
之 後 先 係 photoshop 慢 慢 玩 [/quote]

哦.....明白 明白...thx!

[quote]原帖由 [i]icheng609[/i] 於 2007-11-19 03:34 發表
Digital photo tking is much more environmental friendly and economical! [/quote]

I don't think so, jus visit any camera factory in china, each DSLR will need 50L of clean water to produce, these tonix water will thorw into river and goes directly into sea, then the fishs swallow these dirty water, and then the fishmen catch these fishs and then sell to market, guess where will it end up to? yes human.

the more we use these ipod, new mobile pone every few month and digital camera, the more our health in risk. in the year of 2000 there are already 1 out of 4 person get cancer, why? because most people need these toys in crazy mode this force the factory to produce even more e-toys, the factory is happy because more $$$ in their hands, and the consumer is also happy wow canon 1dsm6, wow nikon D5 100mp pixel, wow iphone wow nokia, and guess what many Lites of water it pulloted?(we drink) and guess how dirty these factory produce(we breath) and guess how many tress they need to chop to produce the box, catalog. these all will end up related to human

compare that to film, film is more nice to our earth, I have been using my nikon fm2 for 20 years, pentax 645 15 years, eos 3 10 years, how long can you use a 1dsmark6? just within 4 years, no matter how baby care to use the digital camera, the electric parts of the camera will wear out, the software will be outdated.

[quote]原帖由 [i]3dmax[/i] 於 2007-11-16 01:46 發表
我系講曬出黎的效果來比較。 [/quote]

the differnce between film vs digital is the dynamic range, not pixel count, if you talk about pixel count a 3mb DSLR already out beat any 35mm film, but if you talk about dynamic range, only s5 pro come close to a negative film, with film you can overexpose to 3-4 stop, and still recover all the highlight area, with digital you just over expose 1 stop, everything is a white paper.

so if you talk about 4R photos, film will beat down even a 1dsm6 with film you just can see so many detail in the highlight area, if you make billboard size photos, 1dsm6 will win.

[quote]原帖由 [i]johnisman[/i] 於 2007-12-21 07:45 發表


I don't think so, jus visit any camera factory in china, each DSLR will need 50L of clean water to produce, these tonix water will thorw into river and goes directly into sea, then the fishs sw ... [/quote]

Not really.  Dating back to the 70's, cameras started using digital components and moving towards less mechanical controls.  That was a start of what you mentioned as the cause of water pollution.  You missed a very important aspects of using negative: developing and fixing.  Did you calculate how much water needed per picture?  Do you know that plenty of chemicals, heavy metals and cyanides, just to name a few were by products of negatives?

As a conclusion, digital cameras produces a finite amount of pollutants on the from end (x gms. per camera plus y gms. per memory device) and pollution of negative using cameras emit pollutants per frame of negative used.  Please do the calculation.

[quote]原帖由 [i]dixmos[/i] 於 2007-12-18 07:22 發表


乜原來菲林機像數咁高架?:L [/quote]

Depends on the speed of the negative.  Using the fast ones (ASA>400) you won't get a lot.  Those are the ones that you can't enlarge beyond 4R or else you will be looking at dots.:)

[quote]原帖由 [i]parkers96[/i] 於 2008-1-3 02:15 發表


Depends on the speed of the negative.  Using the fast ones (ASA>400) you won't get a lot.  Those are the ones that you can't enlarge beyond 4R or else you will be looking at dots.:) [/quote]


A scanned 35mm file can provide an image similar to that of a 19.5 megapixel digital using 300ppi printer and make a real good 12 x18 true photo quality picture.

Thanks for all who contributed to this question.

My view is that it is difficult to answer this question without getting technicality involved.  First of all, resolution is not a direct function of number of pixels but depends on a number of factors.  The size of the sensor (CCD, CMOS) is another factor.  Due to the nature of light (which behaves both as electromagnetic waves and particles), a typical sensor consists of millions of receptors of protons.  To capture colour, a filter is used for each receptor to receive a particular colour of light (e.g. green filter for receptor to receive green light proton).  As human eyes are more acceptable to green colour, there are more green receptors than red and blue receptors in a given sensor.  

This makes very interesting result.  Consider this: what will happen if a green proton falls onto a blue receptor?  Absolutely nothing!  In a sense, that green light signal is lost.  Hence each receptor does not make a pixel but rather a pixel is obtained by interpolating a number of receptors.  

Another aspect of the receptor is that light particles behave in the manner described by quatum physics.  In essesnce, if one conducts a number of experments with the same light intensity, the number of protons received by each receptor will vary slightly, following a certain probabilistic distribution.  Hence it is the statistical average that we report for a given situation as one can never predict with certainty the eact number of protons for a given receptor.

Given such a situation, even optical lenses add to the complexity, Vgoogle has some very technical lectures on this topic as well.

However, it is still possible to make very rough and simplified calculation.  For example someone has made the following comment on Canon EOS 5D DSLR - commenting on sensor size and resolution:

"Additionally the 5D's 12.8 Megapixel resolution matches the theoretical detail of a 3000 dpi 35mm film scan which, coupled with the full-frame coverage, makes it a viable replacement for die-hard 35mm owners"  ([url]http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon5D/index.shtml)[/url]

I hope I have shed some light on the subject.  Interesting though it may be, but is is really difficult to compare resolutuoion in a simplistic sense between a digital system and an anolog system (film).

thanks for sharing