RE: Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative

OTECTED] Subject: RE: Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative That's why I stated even at 2000ppi. Using fine grain slow speed films I dont get much grain at 2000ppi, especially with B&W film. JCO > -Original Message- > From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: We

RE: Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative

, January 08, 2003 8:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative That's why I stated even at 2000ppi. Using fine grain slow speed films I dont get much grain at 2000ppi, especially with B&W film. JCO > -Original Message- > From: Mark Robert

RE: Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative

TECTED] > Subject: Re: Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative > > > "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >At 4000ppi, I've calculated the > >P67 negative to be ~ 90 Mpixel. > >Even at 2000ppi, it's over 22Mpixel. > > >

Re: Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative

"J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >At 4000ppi, I've calculated the >P67 negative to be ~ 90 Mpixel. >Even at 2000ppi, it's over 22Mpixel. > >How long before we get these kind of numbers >out of a DSLR? You can't really compare digital vs. scanned film on a strict megapixel basis becaus

Re: Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative

On 8 Jan 2003 at 18:20, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > At 4000ppi, I've calculated the > P67 negative to be ~ 90 Mpixel. > Even at 2000ppi, it's over 22Mpixel. > > How long before we get these kind of numbers > out of a DSLR? A long time, plus the fact is that a 90M pixel image from a matrix sensor is

Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative

At 4000ppi, I've calculated the P67 negative to be ~ 90 Mpixel. Even at 2000ppi, it's over 22Mpixel. How long before we get these kind of numbers out of a DSLR? JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] My Business references & Websites: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/jco/