Comparing against ASA 100-200 35mm color negative film scanned at
4000ppi rather than medium format film scans, the 6Mpixel images at
A3 Super (13x19") full bleed size look better.
Of course, that assumes an excellent quality capture for both: tripod
mounted camera and proper exposure, critical focus.
Godfrey
On Mar 23, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Markus Maurer wrote:
Hi Godfrey
thanks for the explanation, I mostly order A4 or A3+ enlarments at the
moment printed on a professional ink printer.
On A3 the clay figures close-up made with the Pentax SFXn on ISO
100-200
still looked quite good.
greetings
Markus
-----Original Message-----
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:41 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: mid format cameras - running cost?
On Mar 22, 2006, at 1:45 PM, Markus Maurer wrote:
At what print size would you see a difference from mid format to
digital, A3 or bigger?
Using 6Mpixel DSLR captures as a baseline and comparing against
6x4.5cm or 6x6cm 2400ppi scans with a good if not top of the line
scanner:
Up to A3 image area, print results are equivalent. Scene dynamics do
have an effect: landscapes and highly-detailed wide angle shots
require more detailing to compete with medium format film at large
print sizes. Move up to 10, 12, 16, 22Mpixel capture: much of the
difference will disappear. Rendering and the quality of the capture,
in either film or digital domain, will also have a big impact on the
comparative quality of the prints.
Larger than A3, you must have 10Mpixel or more resolution in digital
capture to produce comparable quality prints. I've made a number of
very nice A3 Super (13x19 full bleed) prints with 6Mpixel DSLR that
look good, but the 8Mpixel and now 10Mpixel prints look better at
this size: the difference is noticeable.
I make prints in the 8x10" to A3 size range most of the time.
Godfrey
