Re: Film vs Digital

"Joel" <Joel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:6fldu3lkuci82h12jhv6f5i61jaeach9nt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "jimkramer" <Newsreader1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> > If quality of image is not a consideration go strictly digital.  It
is
>> > more convenient and less costly.
>>
>> Unless the OP is shooting MF, a 6MP DSLR is going to produce equal or 
>> better
>> images then most commonly available (consumer) 35mm films.  Where this
is
>> not the case is very fine grained slow silver B&W print films and the
>> better, i.e. more expensive, slide films.  At 10-12 MP It's pretty much
a
>> dead heat.
>
> I don't pay much attention to the name to remember the name(s), but I
read
> someone here comparing film to 30MP digital camera.  Of course I have no
> idea where s/he get the idea but it's pretty interesting to find someone

> has
> more knowledge than suppose to <bg>
>
For the very finest grain slowest B&W film with the very best lens maybe
you 
could scratch out 30 MP of real image data on a drum scanner.  But after 
spending all that for the image I'd wonder why it wasn't done in medium or

large format.

The real issues with people who claim to be able to get large MP out of
film 
is that they have special equipment and the very finest of emulsions to
work 
with. The average consumer grade film is basically garbage to generate
4x6" 
prints.  A 1MP camera will make an acceptable 4x6 print and a 3MP will
make 
a great 4x6 print.

Roger N. Clark posted some nice comparisons between digital and film 
"MegaPixels"
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html
and
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

And of course you need to consider the people that think you should only 
compare prints.  Prints made with the finest optical system mind you. :-)

Jim