I'm very sure! The Pro 70 was the first consumer digicam with CFII and hence Microdrive compatibility, it's that old :-)
It has a great lens and RAW capability so can dodge JPEG artifacts altogether. I know it's pushing the accepted wisdom, but people have mistaken the pictures for commercial posters so it's not just my opinion. And I meant 13x19, A3+ or B+ size - that was a typo. In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (LAURIE SOLOMON) wrote: > >I've produced very acceptable 13x9s from a 1.68 megapixel camera, the > Canon > Pro 70. > > Are you sure it is 1.68 megapixels? That is so low that I doubt they > are > even selling digital cameras with that few megapixel capacity. > As for what is or is not very acceptible depends subjectively on one's > tastes and standards; besides 13x9 is a somewhat smaller image than a > 13x19, > although 13x9 may be pushing the envelope for a 1-2 megapixel camera > since > the typical wisdom is that you need at least 3 megapixels to produce a > satisfactory 8x10. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:55 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints > > > I've produced very acceptable 13x9s from a 1.68 megapixel camera, the > Canon Pro 70. > > Yes, when you get up close you can see staircasing from the lack of > resolution, but in practice you don't examine big pictures close up. > > And for me the complete absence of film grain makes all the difference. > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote: > > > I suspect I will 'go digital' sometime in the next year or two. My > > question > > regards what type of print output quality I can expect from digital. > > > > I print on an Epson 2200 at sizes of up to 13x19 inches. In reality, > > I > > tend > > to leave an inch margin or so around the image, so lets say an image > > size of > > 11x17 inches. "Conventional" teaching with scans (and I suppose that > > this > > could be part of the answer..that the conventional holds with scans > > but > > not direct > > digital acquisition) is that for critical sharpness you should be able > > to > > send 300ppi to the printer. Say this is overkill and you really only > > need 250 > > ppi. By my calculations you would still need 11 megapixels fo an > > 11x17 > > image at > > 250ppi. Yet everyone raves at the output of even the Canon 10D at > > significantly less resolution. So is the conventional teaching > > incorrect when it comes > > to direct digital capture? Perhaps more importantly, how many > > megapixels are > > needed for an extremely sharp 11x17 inch print? I realize there are > > other > > benefits to digital capture as it translates to printing, such as lack > > of grain, > > but sharpness is quite important to me as well. I would appreciate > > any > > help > > in how to look at this as I think about getting a digital body. Right > > now I > > am using a 1V and a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus. A DS1 at 14 or so > > megapixels and full frame sensor is way too expensive for me...but if > > a > > new Canon EOS 3 > > type digital body were to come out I could see spending up to $2500 or > > so. > > > > Howard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body