I thought the numbers I saw attributed to some researcher at Kodak was that
there was closer to 25 mpxls of useful data in a 35mm frame. But I could be
miss-remembering just about everything about that last statement.
At 11:21 PM 1/8/2003 -0500, you wrote:
The convention was that a 6MP camera would equal 35mm film.
If that's the case, let's double that (or close to it) and say that an 11MP
camera (currently available in the form of the C*n*n 1Ds) actually equals
35mm film.
Seeing as how the film area of a 6x7 image is 3892 mm square (56 x 69.5mm)
it's 4.5x larger than 35mm (24 x 36mm = 864 mm square).
Therefore even if 11MP is equal to one frame of 35mm film that would suggest
that 49.5MP would equal one frame of 6x7 film.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 8:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative
That's why I stated even at 2000ppi. Using
fine grain slow speed films I dont get much grain
at 2000ppi, especially with B&W film.
JCO
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 8:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative
>
>
> "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >At 4000ppi, I've calculated the
> >P67 negative to be ~ 90 Mpixel.
> >Even at 2000ppi, it's over 22Mpixel.
> >
> >How long before we get these kind of numbers
> >out of a DSLR?
>
> You can't really compare digital vs. scanned film on a strict megapixel
> basis because as you scan film at higher and higher resolutions
> what you're
> getting is more and more grain information and less and less image
> information. A digitally-captured image of a lot fewer than 90 megapixels
> will be better than a 90 megapixel image from scanned film.
>
> --
> Mark Roberts
> Photography and writing
> www.robertstech.com
>
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
