One interesting thing I've noticed after thousands of scan of 35mm and shooting *istD - the digital images seem to handle greater sharpening than the film scans. Also they seem to handle enlarging beyond actual image size (resizing) better. I suspect this is due to the grain in film. Sharpening the grain makes the image a bit noisy looking.
I have seen a Nikon D100 image enlarged to 20X30 that looked as good or better than one of my PZ-1p/43 limited/Portra 160NC images that was enlarged to 16X20. I guess what I am trying to say is that these two mediums are not directly comparable, even though that is what we are always trying to do. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, February 12, 2004, 7:42:05 AM, you wrote: WR> ----- Original Message ----- WR> From: "Nenad Djurdjevic" WR> Subject: Re: megapixel equivalent of 35mm >> So in other words an *istD has as much resolution as WR> we'll realistically >> ever need. Good - 'cos I just bought one! WR> Depends on how big a print you want to make. WR> Personally, I don't think the thing can go above 8x12 WR> without showing artifacts. WR> This is about the same as 35mm. WR> William Robb
