Chip Louie wrote:
>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.
OK for the record, digital cameras will produce better results than film
if you do not scan the film simply because IMO that method really
does not compare film but the quality of film+scanner to digital cameras.
>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.
Sure, because you are now pulling out more information digitally.
>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.
That's your opinion. I know 6MP will do fine.
Peter K
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
