Wouldn't a Film-based surveillance camera still provide more Gigapixel goodness? I was told that despite digital photography's advances - we're still not yet able to match the Gigapixel equivalent that you can get with film. From Wikipedia:
" Many professional-quality film cameras use medium format or large format films. Because of the size of the imaging area, they have higher resolution than the current top-of-the-range digital cameras. It is estimated that a medium format film image can record around 50 megapixels, while large format films can record around 200 megapixels (4 × 5 inch) which would equate to around 800 megapixels on the largest common film format, 8 × 10 inches "
You should probably read quotes before you post them. That quote says 200 megapixels which could possibly upscale to 800 megapixels. That's still just a tiny bit more than 1/3 the resolution this article is talking about.
@cesium: Yeah, that was one of the things I thought would justify digital. Also - the fact that digital photography is a lot easier to manipulate.
@mark and @owdee : You should probably read a bit more before offering a counter argument. Film has surpassed the Gigapixel mark a long, long time ago. Both the U2 and SR 71 spy planes carried cameras with several Gigapixels. In fact, a group of people acquired the U2's camera technology and have 4 Gigapixel FILM Camera ( see their project here: http://www.gigapxl.org/project.htm )
So, you're wrong - film has long ago surpassed the 1 Gigapixel equivalence mark.
I also said : " But then again, I'm probably wrong since I'm talking about consumer level photography equipment."
You attempted to compare an article about consumer photography to high-end surveillance photography. It is obvious one will be less advanced than the other.
Consumer level film cameras have more "equivalent" Megapixels than digital consumer cameras (DSLRs,etc). Whether or not this is true of surveillance cameras in today's world - I don't know. I'm simply stating that if consumer film is still ahead of consumer digital, it may be true of surveillance as well.
The whole film MP equivalency crap changes about every time you read an article about it. It just depends on if it's someone who is pro or anti-film writing it (and how much they like to BS).
The ones on the wiki article make it sound like that's what you *can* get from the highest grade film, which isn't exactly for consumers. You are not going to get 20 usable MP from any old cheap 35mm film camera, it'll be a SLR with expensive lenses (35mm/full frame DSLR's are around 22-25MP for the ones made the last year or two). Lenses between SLRs and DSLRs are pretty much interchangeable if you really want them to be, just with an adapter being used ($100ish for a good one), so it comes down to the cost of the camera and memory cards or film.
@(Unverified) Film!? What decade are you living in? I suppose you're still reading books printed on paper and wiping up your spills with paper towels instead of a Sham Wow.
The Rip is the latest addition to the Boogie eWriter line, devices that let you scribble notes and drawings and can be wiped away with the press of a button.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Wouldn't a Film-based surveillance camera still provide more Gigapixel goodness? I was told that despite digital photography's advances - we're still not yet able to match the Gigapixel equivalent that you can get with film.
From Wikipedia:
" Many professional-quality film cameras use medium format or large format films. Because of the size of the imaging area, they have higher resolution than the current top-of-the-range digital cameras. It is estimated that a medium format film image can record around 50 megapixels, while large format films can record around 200 megapixels (4 × 5 inch) which would equate to around 800 megapixels on the largest common film format, 8 × 10 inches "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography
But then again, I'm probably wrong since I'm talking about consumer level photography equipment.
There's a very good chance that the images will be sent ASAP to some command location. Can't do that with film ;)
You should probably read quotes before you post them. That quote says 200 megapixels which could possibly upscale to 800 megapixels. That's still just a tiny bit more than 1/3 the resolution this article is talking about.
even the largest format film would never even come close to even a single gigapixel. it even says so in your wikipedia quote......
@cesium: Yeah, that was one of the things I thought would justify digital. Also - the fact that digital photography is a lot easier to manipulate.
@mark and @owdee : You should probably read a bit more before offering a counter argument. Film has surpassed the Gigapixel mark a long, long time ago. Both the U2 and SR 71 spy planes carried cameras with several Gigapixels. In fact, a group of people acquired the U2's camera technology and have 4 Gigapixel FILM Camera ( see their project here: http://www.gigapxl.org/project.htm )
So, you're wrong - film has long ago surpassed the 1 Gigapixel equivalence mark.
Alright, then you should have used that quote. I wasn't saying you were wrong, just that the quote you used didn't back up your argument.
I also said : " But then again, I'm probably wrong since I'm talking about consumer level photography equipment."
You attempted to compare an article about consumer photography to high-end surveillance photography. It is obvious one will be less advanced than the other.
Consumer level film cameras have more "equivalent" Megapixels than digital consumer cameras (DSLRs,etc). Whether or not this is true of surveillance cameras in today's world - I don't know. I'm simply stating that if consumer film is still ahead of consumer digital, it may be true of surveillance as well.
The whole film MP equivalency crap changes about every time you read an article about it. It just depends on if it's someone who is pro or anti-film writing it (and how much they like to BS).
The ones on the wiki article make it sound like that's what you *can* get from the highest grade film, which isn't exactly for consumers. You are not going to get 20 usable MP from any old cheap 35mm film camera, it'll be a SLR with expensive lenses (35mm/full frame DSLR's are around 22-25MP for the ones made the last year or two). Lenses between SLRs and DSLRs are pretty much interchangeable if you really want them to be, just with an adapter being used ($100ish for a good one), so it comes down to the cost of the camera and memory cards or film.
@(Unverified) Film!? What decade are you living in? I suppose you're still reading books printed on paper and wiping up your spills with paper towels instead of a Sham Wow.
*facepalm*