> "Quality Factors - 6x4.5 vs. 6x6 vs. 6x7 > Ernst Wildi in his Medium Format Advantage book notes (on p.28) that > the > 6x4.5cm vs. 6x6cm cropped rectangular images printed at 8x10" both > have to > be enlarged by a factor of 4.6X. Using a 6x7cm (56mm x 68mm) image, > the > rectangle has to be enlarged only 3.8X, a difference of only 20%. By > comparison, the area of the 6x7cm image is 60% greater than the > 6x4.5cm > (or cropped 6x6cm) rectangle. It is the longest side length which > determines enlargement factors, rather than the relative area of the > two > images. This result is counter-intuitive; the much (60%+) larger area > 6x7cm image only provides circa 20%+ extra enlargement overhead or > quality. This factor helps explain why there is such a large > improvement > in quality in going from 35mm to medium format, but relatively modest > differences between quality of different medium format sizes."
Oh, what a load of crap. Wildi is Hasselblad's "house expert" and Hasselblad has been trying for years to convince two-and-a-quarter photographers that there's no reason to move up to 6x7. This is corporate soap, not honest analysis. There may be good reasons to prefer 645, but Wildi's Hasselblad apologism isn't among them. --Mike - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
