7.3 gigapixel

[Grapesoda]

https://www.lenstore.co.uk/vc/24-hour-london/

awesome beyond belief.. no shit

https://www.dpreview.com/news/576057...-d850-pictures

[Busty2]

Amazing, i love my D850 with an almost 50 meg sensor it produces stunning images.

[Smack dat]

Pretty good. Is that the same or better than the one that was done for Trumps inauguration?

[hausarzt]

Naked woman on balcony at 3.

[2MuchMark]

Where are all the people?

[pornguy]

Should have done my city. would have been like 100megs

[EddyTheDog]

What was the resolution of old fashioned film? - I would like to solve an old argument if anyone knows...

[Constant Phil]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

What was the resolution of old fashioned film? - I would like to solve an old argument if anyone knows...

87MP on 35mm

320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter. 35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters. To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Smack dat

Pretty good. Is that the same or better than the one that was done for Trumps inauguration?

the 850 was not released was it? no idea, trumps deal wasn't 24 hours though

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Where are all the people?

photography secret. the slow shutter allows the people to walk through the shots and not be photographed. if there are many many people you would see and colored blur I think and I guy would need to stand still 30-40 seconds 1 minute? I have no idea how slow the shutter is on this stuff... it's like a super math problem I don't want to calculate if that makes sense to you....

you equate photography with 125th shutter which is what the consumer shutter usually runs at... like your phone.... it's 125th I'm thinking. that means 125 times a second if you are curious. that freezes normal action with flash. I shoot at a 200th just to make fucking sure things are crisp.

I have done natural lite shoots with a 30 second shutter. the model just has to freeze for 30 seconds and I needed to use a tripod... beautiful stuff....

it's like politics Mark, a whole more going on, and a lot more complicated than you suspect lol

*peace* the grape...

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

What was the resolution of old fashioned film? - I would like to solve an old argument if anyone knows...

that depends on the scan. and what is being printed, was it shot 135 or medium format 6x7, 6x9 or 2 1/4...large format 5x7, 8x10 or 11x14 and the playboy centerfold were shot with some weird camera.... see? do not bet on it.... way to many variables...

let's just say if you scanned a photo shot on a 135 with 400 speed film you would think's it's grainy and soft, not crisp. and be very bummed. unless it was print size of say 5x7

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Constant Phil

87MP on 35mm

320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter. 35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters. To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels

yes however the medium you are scanning will not have the information you think you are going to scan. was not recorded with 135 film and emulsions. not enough latitude or resolution in the contrast with the technology. you will have a great scan of a blurry grainy image.

and dude, awesome math save... impressive

[NemesisEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

the 850 was not released was it? ...

Yes, got mine last fall.

[Paul&John]

Very nice indeed

[XMaster]

impressive!

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by Constant Phil

87MP on 35mm

320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter. 35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters. To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

that depends on the scan. and what is being printed, was it shot 135 or medium format 6x7, 6x9 or 2 1/4...large format 5x7, 8x10 or 11x14 and the playboy centerfold were shot with some weird camera.... see? do not bet on it.... way to many variables...

let's just say if you scanned a photo shot on a 135 with 400 speed film you would think's it's grainy and soft, not crisp. and be very bummed. unless it was print size of say 5x7

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

yes however the medium you are scanning will not have the information you think you are going to scan. was not recorded with 135 film and emulsions. not enough latitude or resolution in the contrast with the technology. you will have a great scan of a blurry grainy image.

and dude, awesome math save... impressive

Thanks - That's some good argument winning information right there...

[adultchatpay]

Nice rig set up.

[Busty2]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

What was the resolution of old fashioned film? - I would like to solve an old argument if anyone knows...

Film was never rated by resolution, you had normal or fine grain films and some high speed films like tri-X which had a very course grain. The first job i had was working for Kodak in the UK . I still use Kodak films and find the D-Max far superior to any digital image. Digital is getting much better than when i had my first Nikon D1 camera. But when i compare a print from the Nikon D850 to my old Nikon F3 film camera there is still a wonderful quality (depth) that is lacking in digital IMHO ?

Ektachrome is due to be re-launched by Kodak this year, i am so looking forward to its release !

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Busty2

Film was never rated by resolution, you had normal or fine grain films and some high speed films like tri-X which had a very course grain. The first job i had was working for Kodak in the UK . I still use Kodak films and find the D-Max far superior to any digital image. Digital is getting much better than when i had my first Nikon D1 camera. But when i compare a print from the Nikon D850 to my old Nikon F3 film camera there is still a wonderful quality (depth) that is lacking in digital IMHO ?

Ektachrome is due to be re-launched by Kodak this year, i am so looking forward to its release !

film quality is 'deff film quality' however the format is limited these days and can be emulated in post... maybe Marco will pop in I'll hit him up... I used to love the high speed aerial film.. for nudes.....2204 or something

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by Busty2

Film was never rated by resolution, you had normal or fine grain films and some high speed films like tri-X which had a very course grain. The first job i had was working for Kodak in the UK . I still use Kodak films and find the D-Max far superior to any digital image. Digital is getting much better than when i had my first Nikon D1 camera. But when i compare a print from the Nikon D850 to my old Nikon F3 film camera there is still a wonderful quality (depth) that is lacking in digital IMHO ?

Ektachrome is due to be re-launched by Kodak this year, i am so looking forward to its release !

John, my step dads argument has always been that digital will never match film because of 'grain siZe' - It has been going on for years - Bloody annoying if I am wrong - I hate losing to him...

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by EddyTheDog

John, my step dads argument has always been that digital will never match film because of 'grain siZe' - It has been going on for years - Bloody annoying if I am wrong - I hate losing to him...

it's like this. there are scans of various films shot at various speeds... with no image, just exposed film. they take those and pull the grain directly over in Photoshop. can't lose on 'subjective'

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Where are all the people?

that's only on the night stuff. day light plenty of people... although I was told slow shutter is how they get the shots of tourist stuff in Rome etc... with no people..... the people keep moving and are never 'caught' on film. so you see the vast empty court yards etc... I use the same limited knowledge of photography over and over... don't do much interesting techy stuff though I have in the past.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by NemesisEnforcer

Yes, got mine last fall.

every white house shooter of late has ben a canon fanboy

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Busty2

Film was never rated by resolution, you had normal or fine grain films and some high speed films like tri-X which had a very course grain. The first job i had was working for Kodak in the UK . I still use Kodak films and find the D-Max far superior to any digital image. Digital is getting much better than when i had my first Nikon D1 camera. But when i compare a print from the Nikon D850 to my old Nikon F3 film camera there is still a wonderful quality (depth) that is lacking in digital IMHO ?

Ektachrome is due to be re-launched by Kodak this year, i am so looking forward to its release !

I have 2 Nikon F's and a Nikorex, the first 8 months of content production done on the F with 400 speed Fuji. 20 rolls of film per shoot

[Busty2]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

I have 2 Nikon F's and a Nikorex, the first 8 months of content production done on the F with 400 speed Fuji. 20 rolls of film per shoot

The good old days, I spent 4 years in BRCT college in London thanks to Kodak and got a PHD in Advanced Scientific Photography & Laser Technology, around the time they (Kodak) invented the digital sensor. Now everyone with enough money to by a digital camera is a photographer . Kodak was a great company to work for, huge annual bonus and some amazingly cute women with brains working there!!!!

[NatalieK]

Originally Posted by 2MuchMark

Where are all the people?

I know... first I thought, how many people are going to be looking and searching for a naked woman changing clothes through the windows

need to just check out https://nataliek.xxx/scene/7072668/i...ou-dont-see-me

for perving