Marvin wrote:
> Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Since we are talking about images,I prefer to compare film vs. digital
> to oil paint vs. watercolors.
Your point?
|
