== == == == The short answer is that a modern 24-megapixel digital SLR offers around the same level of resolution as a good film scanned in a modern minilab. Ken Rockwell has tested the Nikon D3X to this effect; see related links below.
Now for the long answer.
It's quite easy to work out the maximum theoretical resolution of film; manufacturers document this for their films. It's measured in lines per millimeter (L/mm); each one of these is roughly equivalent to two pixels in one direction. So all we need to do is multiply the width of the film (in millimeters) by the L/mm figure, multiply that by two. Do the same for the height, and there you'll have the maximum resolution at which a film, shot in perfect conditions, can be scanned, without interpolation (made-up pixels -- something we'll come back to later).
((lpm * 36 * 2) * (lpm * 24 * 2)) / 1000000
If we're going to make a comparison with a high-end digital camera, it's not fair to take a cheap consumer negative film for the comparison. For our comparisons, we'll use the professional Velvia film, at 160 lines per millimeter, we end up with a figure of about 88 megapixels. (If you wondered why we multiply by two, this is because one line = two pixels.)
Yet, this figure does not show you how many megapixels a digital camera would need to achieve the same resolution. Most of a digital camera's "pixels" simply do not exist; they do not capture both red, green, and blue on each pixel, only one colour each. They then use Bayer interpolation to make up the rest. Ken Rockwell claims this "lie factor" as being about two. You may prefer different figures, but we'll use this. So, the final "megapixel" count becomes about 176. You could even up this somewhat if you take into account the fact that digital cameras love nuking any fine details with noise reduction, but we'll leave that aside for now.
(Ken Rockwell ends up with a figure of 175 for the same film. Depends on how you round it.)
This comparison is unfair to digital, though. This assumes that you're shooting test charts specifically designed to extract the maximum resolution from a piece of film; moreover, it assumes that very fine amounts of barely-resolved detail are just as significant as coarser details resolved near-perfectly. The real world doesn't work like this. Some people look at the MTF curve of the film, and see at what point the curve drops below 50%. This would leave you resolving 50 lines per millimeter, or about 8 megapixels (16 if Ken Rockwell's "lie factor" is accurate). You may choose another, just as arbitrary, percentage, look at your film's MTF curve, and do the math yourself.
(An explanation of MTF curves is beyond the scope of a quick answer, and not particularly interesting anyway. Sorry.)
This theoretical resolution does not translate into the real world very well.
For one, you're assuming that your lens is able to resolve this much detail. It might not be, in which case it's wasted. Moreover, if you're going to make a fair comparison of resolution, you will do so side-by-side on a computer screen. You have to get the picture off the film onto a computer. Yes, you could compare prints, but then you'll be comparing your optical printing system versus your computer printer, which isn't fair. That or comparing how well your printer prints certain things.
It isn't fair to shove a cheap print (itself made digitally!) into a cheap flatbed scanner, compare it to a digital file, and conclude thereafter that film sucks and digital rules. Yet, neither is it fair to assume that any photographer will be ready and willing to spend a small fortune on an 12,000 dpi drum scanner and then spend 30+ minutes on scanning one slide (or failing that, spending a hideous amount of money to have someone do it for them). More likely that they'll own a CCD film scanner, or drop it into a minilab to have it scanned for them.
In short, the moment you leave the laboratory and take the comparison into the real world of Photography, too many things get in the way for a simple resolution comparison to be made. Here, then, are various "real world" figures that some people here have offered. * 2-3 megapixels: Visual equivalent in a 4x6 print to 80-85% of the population, on a camera with a decent lens. * 3 megapixels: Some people use the comparison with an A4 print. A 3 megapixel camera will do this happily. * 6-8 megapixels:For cheap consumer negative film. People who own the 6-megapixel Nikon D70, or the Canon D60, say that a 20x30 poster print from one of these is roughly equivalent to that from 35mm film. Make of that what you will.
* 12 megapixels: Another arbitrary figure sometimes offered.
* 24 megapixels: Ken Rockwell's comparison of the 24-megapixel Nikon D3X showed that it resolved details about as well as Velvia 50 film scanned commercially. This is probably the answer that fits the real world of photography better than any others.
== == There are varying advantages and disadvantages of film that cannot be captured in a megapixel figure, so barring some massive change in digital camera sensor technology, a fair comparison will never be possible.
* The size to which you want to print an image matters.Digital breaks down in a nasty and unusable fashion when it reaches its resolution limit. Film gradually gets crummier till you reach a blurry mess somewhere around 40X enlargement. * Film has much greater dynamic range than digital. Another thing that doesn't fit into megapixel figures, but is very important. * Digital has noise issues. Film has grain issues.
* There are good films and bad films, and good digital cameras and bad ones. As stated earlier, any comparison you make has to compare like and like. Don't compare a point-and-shoot digital camera (regardless of megapixels) with an expensive professional slide film. Don't compare a cheap negative film from Wal-Mart with an $8000 digital SLR. * Megapixels are irrelevant. Nearly any digital camera can be used to take amazing shots. Nearly any film camera can do the same. This has nothing to do with megapixels. If you're not doing enormous enlargements, or only viewing your pictures on a computer screen, then don't worry about it.
3.2 would be better, but not by much. The higher the number of megapixels, the higher quality your image will be (and consequently, the more storage will be needed because they will be bigger files). So details that are present in a 10 megapixel camera will not be present in a 3 megapixel camera.
Multiply the numbers and divide by 1,000,000 So it would be 0.3 megapixels approx.
one megapixel is a million pixels, so 9.2 mega pixels would be 9.2 million pixels, or 9,200,000 pixels.
All other things being equal, the minimum number of megapixels required is 4, and that will give good postcard-sized snapshots. Anything less is inferior.
A flip video phone is typically lower in quality than the hdtv camcorder would be. The flip video phone camera would generally be lower than 1 megapixel while hdtv camcorders would often exceed 2 megapixels.
8.2 megapixels is around average. I'll put it this way, 8 megapixels is enough. The only reason you would need more than 9 is if your cropping something very small.
i recommend 7.1 ;)
I would say a Fuji Camera 7 Megapixels. Any higher than that there is no visual benefit apart from having a larger picture.
The megapixels do not have to do with the quality of the picture. The more megapixels your camera has, the larger you can print a picture. I'm not sure where the 'cutoff' numbers are, but I know that you can print an excellent 8x10 with a 7 MP camera ('cause i have one). I think with a 10MP you can print a 14x16...not sure tho. I tried to be more vague...but I figured you would rather have SOME answer, in case you are shopping.
According to Clarkvision, if human eye was a digital camera it would be 576 megapixels.
The more pixels the larger the print you can make with good quality. You don't not need a camera with a lot of pixels if you primarily print size is 5x7 or smaller. 3 megapixels would do just fine. Don't be duped by this more megapixels the better the picture hype. That, as a rule, is true only if you making large prints. Rule of thumb for determining maximum print size: MULTIPLY the PIXEL SIZE of you picture. (length x width) and devide the answer by one million (1000000) Example 1024x768 = 786432 divided by 1000000 =786432. First two digets 7x8 or round off to 8x10. Remember this is a guide line it is not perfect. But good enough for most purposes.
I think that all depends on what you want to do with the pictures. Are you planning just have the images on your computer or actually print them out. If your planning to print images the higher the megapixel, the larger you can print your pictures.. I would suggest getting a camera with no less than 6 megapixels. 6 megapixels max - unless you are doing medical photography.
-- At the maximum positive latitude, you would be at the north pole. -- At the maximum negative latitude, you would be at the south pole.
Yes. For example, if at least a quarter of the observations were all equal to the minimum then the left whisker would collapse into the left side of the box. Similarly, if a quarter of the observations were equal to the maximum, the right whisker would not appear.
The amount of megapixels a camera has determines how big and clear the picture will turn out. For example, if you want a 8" by 10" print you would need a 6-megapixel camera & up. The larger the megapixel the better the picture.
At the top of the trajectory, the speed is minimum, and it's at its maximum right before it crashes on the ground (if the ground is equal or lower than where the projectile was shot from). If the landing site is at a higher level, then the maximum speed would be from where it was shot.
The phone usually does a decent job taking images, however digital camera's are more advanced and can take higher-quality pictures. A digital camera usually has more megapixels which result in better quality images. If purchasing a digital camera, you should buy one with at least eight megapixels. Always remember that high-tech and fancy equipment does not always result in better images. Lighting, scenery, position all come in play when taking pictures. For everyday photographs I would suggest using a phone as it is more convenient to carry, but if you are going for vacation, or a popular tourist area I would suggest to use a camera to get a better quality and higher resolution image.
100 % would be the maximum
Film cameras do not measure in megapixels. There were no digital cameras in the Nineteenth Century. I agree with the answer above. BUT I know what you're thinking. There are some incredibly sharp Civil war photos that captured the time on a clock tower from MILES away, so old cameras could be extremely sharp... IF (and this is a big IF), a 12 MP camera is roughly equivalent to a consumer 35mm color film, and IF the size of the plate (film) that 1800's camera is 6 times bigger than a 35 mm film, and IF the chemistry on the 1800's film plate was even, and of high quality, and IF the lens was tack sharp, and IF the developing process was of high quality... you could probably figure that the equivalent megapixels would be... ...6 x 12 megapixels... 72 MP Right?
If the projectile was traveling straight no with zero horizontal velocity, then its speed would be zero at its maximum height. If the projectile had non-zero horizontal velocity during its flight (such as a thrown baseball), its speed would not be zero at its maximum height. In that case, its speed at is maximum height would be equal to its horizontal speed during its flight (assuming that its horizontal speed remains constant). It's the vertical component of velocity that's zero at the top of the arc.
They would prosecute to the maximum extent of the law.
When buying a digital camera you should consider how many megapixels you would be happy with. The higher the number, the better quality of photo it will be. Also, check the size of the memory card and see if it is suitable for your needs. Lastly, make sure the digital camera is compatible with your computer.
Good would be the quality.
For an 8 megapixel camera I would suggest a 2MB memory card,
My camera is 10 mega pixels. The higher amount of pixels the better value and quality the picture is. I assume that only 5 mega pixels is pretty low and the pictures that you take won't be as good quality as, say, 10 mega pixels. In the article "Digital Photography: How many Megapixels Do You Need?" (at http://www.naturesimage.com.au/page/77145/default.asp) the professional photographer Andrew Goodall says good pictures up to 8"x12" can be taken with a 5MP camera:- You can produce good, high quality prints up to 8x12 inch (20x30cm), and probably larger, with a five megapixel camera. This is not a compromise; I doubt you would see any improvement in print quality taking the same picture on a ten megapixel camera. Certainly you would see a difference if you enlarged the photo to poster size, but (as we have discussed), very few people reading this article are likely to do that. Please do not see these comments as negative. I would never suggest that anyone who has bought a more powerful camera has wasted their money. Your upmarket camera probably came with an extra feature or two that adds to the fun you can have with photography. And of course, it is nice to know you could make giant prints from your photos…even though we both know you possibly never will. The important thing is not how many megapixels the camera has, but how well-focussed and sharp the original photo was in the first place. A camera with more megapixels doesn't make you a better photographer: a poor 6"x4" will be an atrocious A4 size photo (Hint: focus on the eyelashes.)