I suspect you are misunderstanding me.
Here it is again. Under average conditions, 6MP about equals the best
35mm films, 8MP will do a little better. Under ideal conditions ~10MP
equals 35mm. The conditions affect the resolution of the film more than
it does the resolution of digital, which doesn't tail off as quickly as
film resolution does under poor conditions (Grain size varies, sensor
site size is fixed, combine with the linear response of digital sensors
and digital has advantage under poor conditions that disappears under
ideal conditions). Note that this is for APS and FF Bayer sensors of
traditional design (I'm not getting into the Foveon and Fuji sensors),
the little sensors in most Prosumer P&S's do not fare as well (6MP
DSLR's generally outperform 8MP Prosumer cameras for resolution)
A 17MP camera can match the resolution of 120 film in most cases, as
proven by teh Canon 1Ds mk II.
Mishka wrote:
do the math (the simple kind: multiplication and division)
mishka
On 9/19/05, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They do not contradict at all. When used under ideal conditions, 35mm
film is still exceeded by a 10+MP sensor (All other things being equal
and using glass of sufficient quality). 17MP can match 120 film.
-Adam
Mishka wrote:
Those are mutually contradictory statements. Both cannot be true at the same
time.
mishka
On 9/18/05, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It takes 10+MP to exceed 35mm film under idea; conditions, and as the 1Ds mkII
has shown you can match 120 film with 17MP.
