"Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I am not mistaken in one case you are taking a 900 x 900 pixel sample from a 3000 x 2000 pixel (approximately) dimensioned image. In the other case, you are taking the same 900 x 900 pixel section from a 5080 x 5080 (or there about) pixel image, which is considerably less total image information. <<<<<<<<<<<<
Exactly. >>>>>>>>>>>> If you are saying on a pixel per pixel basis (excluding resolution of the total image) that the Bayer patterned digicam image looks cleaner and "better" than the translated dye cloud (film) to squared pixels by scanning, then you'll get no argument from me. <<<<<<<<<<<< Exactly<G>. I was objecting to claims of the form ""my scanner produces 210 MP when your digital camera only produces 6MP". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The digicam image is "designed" for the square pixelled format, and the translation takes place at the point the light hits the sensor, rather than going through the whole translation process, going from light, to photon chemical reactions to more (liquid) chemical reactions on randomly sized and positioned "dots" (grain/dye clouds) then reformatted to fit square pixels. So you'll get no argument from me there. The Bayer patterned image doesn't have the accuracy of color the film will (at the same resolution) and the film is obviously still resolution superior, even after scanning. <<<<<<<<<<<< The difference goes the other way if you look at film of the same area as the digital sensor. A 15x22 mm area of film printed at A4 (a 14x enlargement) is going to look pretty funky compared to a sharp 10D image. <<<<<<<<<<< Yes, once the digital cameras provide 4000 or 5000 ppi resolution, no question, it will look better (even if the color still won't be as accurate), but I think it's a way off financially. A decent film camera and some quality film still is a bit more affordable than 24 megapixel sensored digicams. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< The question is what the cutoff point is. It looks to me that 35mm film is worth about 9MP, not 24MP. Most people comparing the 1Ds to 35mm film find the 1Ds winning hands down. There is a question as to how much more information a 5080 dpi scanner gets out of a 35mm frame than a 4000 dpi scanner. I suspect that it's not enough of a difference to be significant. (None of the Minolta 5400 scans of actual images I've seen showed significant improvement over 4000 dpi scans, although the test chart images look a lot better.) David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body