35mm SLR vs DSLR

Nice presentation. Thank you.

Rod

AJSJones wrote in post #17560164
Pretty good way to estimate the ball park we play in

Interesting that the 35mm comes in around the same as 4K, given the early assessments that 35mm frame could hold ~8MP of information.

We await the marketing push for 8K monitors/projectors

It looks like that still holds. 4096x2160 ~ 8.8 meg

Rod

RodS57 wrote in post #17560236
It looks like that still holds. 4096x2160 ~ 8.8 meg

Rod

Hence my comment

AJSJones wrote in post #17559114
You need to try it to find out You can't do it by "intuition" and these charts have been created by A-B testing people. Are the lines in "precisely" the right places? Probably not. Are they a good estimate of the likely transition zones? Probably. The issue is not whether you can see a single white pixel on a black background but whether you can accurately tell if it is one or two pixels (to resolve one from the other - the meaning of resolution). I'd be interested to see at what distance (in terms of screen width) you would need to be to tell the BW stripes vs 50% gray on a 4K projector screen ...

Added:
I would actually be interested in the results of a well-controlled blinded test of 35mm high res film and 4K using the same lens and lamp in the projection system at different viewing distances Data is always better than speculation

My issue there is, if you can see a single white pixel... yeah, it makes a difference in the bigger picture (literally), even if you can't pick out every individual pixel. That's the whole point of going to smaller pixels. Same principle as cramming a 1080p screen onto my phone. Things look better. Smoother. I'll go 4k with my next TV and not listen to the bleating that it doesn't matter.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17560554
My issue there is, if you can see a single white pixel... yeah, it makes a difference in the bigger picture (literally), even if you can't pick out every individual pixel. That's the whole point of going to smaller pixels. Same principle as cramming a 1080p screen onto my phone. Things look better. Smoother. I'll go 4k with my next TV and not listen to the bleating that it doesn't matter.

But once a pixel is small enough making them smaller and adding more of them cannot be detected by the human eye. This is the same principle as the circle of confusion in asssessing depth of field - once you move far enough away from the image, you cannot benefit from all the pixels because you can't distinguish them and more of the image appears sharp/in focus. When you move closer, then you can distinguish more. The viewing distance is key, whether assessing DoF or comparing two projected images. How close do you view your phone? Phones have RGB pixel structure so that confounds some of the discussion too That's why I prefer testing to guessing. Wilt made a good start, but left out some important variables that are hard to model.
As for seeing a single white pixel on a black background, once it is small enough, I could make it smaller and you couldn't tell because the eye does not have sufficient resolution! Conversely, I could start out with a tiny one and keep increasing its size and keep asking you "Is it bigger now?" and only when it reached a certain size would you be able to get the answer right. That size is what is being considered here as the limit of human vision acuity and used in the pixel calculations. Having more pixels is better, but only up to a point - it's that point that we are talking about and it needs real world testing to determine how many MP are needed to be considered superior to 1 1/2 sq inches of film. The number of 8MP seems to show up quite frequently...