Oh, 12MP is fine for a very large range of applications. But that test
is not representative of film.
I saw your Clint message, by the way.
-Aaron
On May 6, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
That's true. It was sized down for printing. He should have printed it
at 300 or 360. But the web images would have been resized anyway, and
that's all we're seeing here. I'm sure he did something wrong, but I'm
betting it was lousy scans. The difference is too big for any other
explanation. But I do think it demonstrates that 12 megapixel digital
from a full frame sensor is capable of quality that can compete with
medium format. Many pros have staked their careers on that and have
proven it to be the case. Clint Clemens is a good example. (I
mentioned this in a previous message, but it never showed up.) He's a
30K/day commercial shooter with fine-art credentials. He works
exclusively with the Canon full frame dslr in the studio and on
location, and is booked solid.
Paul
On May 6, 2006, at 3:16 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
On May 5, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
The author of the test didn't say that. In fact, he scanned the 6x6
at a fairly high resolution.
He said he sized both files to make a 240 dpi 20x30. 240 dpi at
20x30 from 6x6 is not all that high -- that scanner is capable of
much more. Therefore, the scan was sized down.
-Aaron
