It appears that in recent comparisons film has been downgraded from earlier estimates of either 70 or 40 megs (I recall both numbers at different times). There might be a confusion over capture resolution and resultant file size, and it would be helpful if the writers of these essays could be more specific. A digital camera will create a file which, if it's uncompressed to begin, or when it's decompressed, is 3 or 4 times larger than its megapixel measurement (depending on the format it writes to: RGB, CMYK, as a TIFF or a Photoshop file &s).
Also, as long as the best digicams still use an RGGB matrix on the chip a lot of the colour data in their files is presumed by interpolation (Foveon is the great hope here but only time will tell if it prevails). The colour data at every pixel of a scanned film is true, ie. non-interpolated, data. BTW a 10,000 line drum scanner would produce a 150 megapixel file from a 35mm frame (I don't know how to calculate the file size though). I very sincerely doubt that the hard-nosed businesspeople of the printing trade would spend so much money to buy a 10,000 line drum scanner when a desktop film scanner like a Flextight would get the maximum result from films. Obviously, some facts are missing from the film/digital comparisons we've seen so far, but never mind, they've been replaced by some serviceable prejudices ;-) Regards, Anthony Farr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (snip) > According to Keppler in his recent "Popular > Photography" article, > referenced earlier in this forum, 35mm film records the equivalent of 24 > megapixels of data. >
