That's not *quite* what he said ... If you use fine-grained film you can get significantly better than 6MP before you start seeing any signs of grain.
More to the point - 6MP is enough for a 7.5" x 10" print at 300ppi, or a 10x15 at 200ppi. If all you are doing is prints from pretty much the full frame at 8x10 or smaller then the *ist-D will produce enough pixels for your needs. (Ink migration and paper flexibility make printing at higher than 300ppi pretty much a waste of time on consumer inkjets). If you want to do significant cropping, or if you want to be able to produce larger prints, you'll need correspondingly more pixels. For the 16x20 LightJet print on my wall, which was printed at 205ppi, I started with a 4000dpi (20MP) scan. I think 6MP is the low end, while 20MP would be overkill. I expect I'll buy another DSLR when the consumer sensors get to the 11-14MP range currently only found on high-end models. But that won't replace the *ist-D for the 90% or more of my shots that are never intended for anythig larger than 8x10. > So in other words an *istD has as much resolution as we'll realistically > ever need. Good - 'cos I just bought one! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 5:17 PM > Subject: Re: megapixel equivalent of 35mm > > > > On 12 Feb 2004 at 14:11, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: > > > > > What if I only wanted to "the scan to resemble direct digital image > capture" and > > > not to scan film grain? > > > > A 2000DPI film scan will amalgamate the grain on all but the fastest > films., > > i.e. roughly equivalent to 6M pixels. > > > > > > Rob Studdert > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > >
