jimkramer wrote:
> "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.
:-)
The differences is like that between LPs and CDs, oils and inks, film
and tape.
|
