ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk
Fri Aug 5 16:52:33 CDT 2005
> Have you seen the output from 6 or 8 megapixel cameras? A 35 mm
> camera doesn't easily beat that, if at all.
Hmmm.. I reckon that a good 35mm camera (good meaning a top-end lens and
fine grain film) is equivalent to 12-20 megapixels. Rmemeber there is a
big differnce between 'sharpness' (which can be fiddled later with a
digital camera) and resolution (i.e. the ability to see fine detail in
Large format film is between 0.5 to 1 _gigapixel_ IMHO.
> Also, once you figure in the postprocessing all the way to press,
> film isn't necessarily easier or cheaper anymore. Sure you get a nice
> negative. Now you have to scan it, on a drum scanner if you want to
> keep all those pixels. ...
True, but that's no reason not to record them in the first place. You can
always loose information (e.g. by scanning at a lower resolution), you
can never gain it.
In other words, if I take a large-format film picture of something, I can
always scan the negative or a print made from it and, say, produce an
8Mpixel image (which would be considerably poorer than the original film
image). But if you take an 8Mpixel image with a digital camera, no way
can you then produce something equivalent to my film.
More information about the cctech