From: David TownendI'm not too sure I follow that, but could we be referring to the actual effective resolution of the film in question, not the scan of it. I feel far less technical than many here, thus my lack of posts (thank you all for the continuing education by the way) but I know that I have done many traditional enlargements up to 20x30 inches of everything from Velvia to Fuji Press 800 neg film to all manner of Ektachrome and nothing comes close to the quality I can achieve from my D1x file and that is even using .jpeg fine. I'm sure there could be dispute on this matter, but to my slightly less trained eye, I think the results from this size file are spectacular versus traditional prints from film. let alone a scan from a 35mm neg/trans.
Not too sure if I follow this. If I shot on say 35mm film I could scan it at
6,300ppi (using a Flextight P3 on max optical res, for example) and I would
get a file approx. 140MB 8 Bit / 8263 x 5859 pixels
The Nikon D100 will produce an 18MB 8 Bit file / 3000 x 2000 pixels
Whenever I get an objection to digital based on file size/quality, I just pull out a couple Iris or Grand Sherpa prints I have made to poster size and most objections go away fairly quickly, but then again, my average customer is most likely less sophisticated than yours, so my example may be irrelevant.
Like I said, I may not pay attention the the specs as much as some here, but after 15+ years of shooting film and now a little over 1 year digital, I will never go back, that is for sure, and luckily for me, my markets offer me that choice.
Good luck, Robert www.kickshots.com
_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
