<<SNIPPED>> > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, if you scan film it would produce actually better results > (scanner dependent) that a digital image originating from > a digital camera. Who said magical? Not I. > > You guys get way too hung up on defending the EOS 1, 3, et al. > > Peter K >
Hi Peter, But you claimed that digital cameras had caught up to or had surpassed film in image quality. Obviously if the output of a scanned film original looks better than a similarly outputted image originating from a digital camera, film still has a higher level of quality than a digital original at the moment. You have stated my position all along. It has been my own experience that drum scanned 35mm film can easily beat digital originals no matter how you resize the digital files. This is because drum scanned film files have a higher level of resolution and a lower level of quantization errors than the current consumer/prosumer digital bodies can provide with lower levels of aliasing. I have no doubt that I and MANY others shooting film will go more digital (I currently have a Polaroid SS4000 and use an 8,000dpi drum scanner for jobs that demand it), by buying a digital camera body in a short time (as I've stated before, 12MP should be enough to get acceptable results with good quality output from a LightJet), but not for reasons of image quality, for economic reasons. Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
