Paul via phone
> On Jan 4, 2014, at 4:31 PM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> Paul via phone >> >>> On Jan 4, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Bruce Walker wrote: >>> >>>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> John wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think some are still under the mistaken impression that what you >>>>>> "NEED" permits you to tell me what I'm allowed to *want*. >>>>> >>>>> What's interesting to me is that this nontroversy is new to digital. >>>>> Back in the days of film I don't recall anyone who expressed interest >>>>> in buying a Pentax 67 or 645 being told they they didn't need that >>>>> much resolution or wouldn't print large enough to justify it. >>>> >>>> But that was well before the Internet and fanboyism. >>> >>> Um, no it wasn't. >> Of course negative size and sensor size aren't the same thing. In theory, >> one can pack a lot of pixels on a sensor of modest size, whereas the size >> of the film is the size of the film. > > Sensor size and film size are very similar; packing more pixels into a > given area is like switching to finer grained film. > But the same emulsions were offered for both large and small negatives. There 's no flexibility. Paul > -- > Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia > www.robertstech.com > > > > > > -- > 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. -- 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.
