True - the CCD is probably collecting more data per square millimeter than
I am giveing it credit for. Possibly more than film, though I don;t really
have a point o0f reference for that.
But, the bottom line is a 3.3 megapixel image is still limited in how big
it can be printed.
To put this in perspective - a 645 loaded with Velvia captures no more info
per square millimeter than a 35mm camera loaded with Velvia. But you can
make a much better enlargement from the 645.
If they could make a digital sensor with the density of the little 3.3
sensors, but was 35mm size (or 6 x 4!) then it would be something to rival
film.
"If"? I guess that should be "When".
- MCC
At 12:39 PM 9/23/01 -0400, Doug wrote:
> > [...] scan a slide at 8 bit color depth and 2400 dpi, I get a
> > 30 to 40 meg file. The best my 3.34 megapixel digicam can
> > produce is a 10 meg file.
>
>I think this is a bit of an "apples to oranges" comparison. The
>comparison should really be between the pixels-per-unit-area (areal
>density) rather than the overall "file size". If the digicam's CCD is
>only a third the area of the 35mm frame, then maybe it could capture
>all of the data the film does, if the same amount of the image is
>focused on it. Am I being clear?
- - - - - - - - - -
Mark Cassino
Kalamazoo, MI
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- - - - - - - - - -
Photos:
http://www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - -
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
