Close only counts in horse shoes ... please explain why 4000ppi is the of resolution.
William Robb wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shel Belinkoff" > Subject: Re: Am I Really a Dinosaur? > > > Well, I can't argue the point, as I'm not well versed in these > things, > > but that doesn't stop me from having an informed opinion, > which is that > > you're wrong. > > Actually, he is pretty close to being right. > > William Robb > > > > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > > > > > 4000ppi is probably better than 35mm can do because > > > the lenses w/ film rarely if ever achive more than 100 > lines/mm > > > which would be more like a 2400x3600 pixel image which > > > is only about 8.5 Mpixel. > - > 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 . -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/ You can't have everything. Where would you put it? - 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 .
