From: Boris Liberman
On 4/20/2012 05:13, John Sessoms wrote:
That math is so simple, even I can do it.
A 135mm film frame is 24x36 mm. Convert to inches & you get 0.94 x 1.42
Scan @ 4,000 dpi = 3760 x 5680 = 21,356,800
Divide twice by 1024 gives 20.37 MP
I chose 4,000 dpi because that's what Nikon said the Coolscan 9000 could
do.
John what easily follows from your math, that the likes of K-5 or this
news 24 MP offering from Nikon (likely built after 24 MP Sony sensor)
has actually smaller pixels than the above scan. It is because of the
crop factor.
But, I wonder who really would produce a work worthy of an enlargement
suitable for so many pixels? It seems that I am pretty content with my
K-5en.
Boris
More pixels just gives you more to work with. If you don't need them no
one is forcing you to use them. Maybe you can't produce work "worthy" of
that pixel count, but you'll never find out unless you try. I'm sure
there's plenty of photographers out there doing work that benefits from
the high pixel count.
I don't know how many pixels you need to be "equivalent" to 35mm film,
but I can figure out how many pixels you could actually get from
scanning the film.
AFAIK, the Coolscan 9000 was the last film scanner Nikon offered and is
no longer in production, although you can still buy it new.
It also scans 120/220 film, which gives something to use when thinking
what MP count would be "equal" to 645 & 6x7 film for Medium Format Digital?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
