Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial photography



> --- Austin Franklin <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > There are not any other dimensions than I stated (positional and
> > value) to
> > the data you get from a digital camera.
>
> Well, you did get off-topic so I took the right to go off-topic as
> well.

I was only commenting on what I believed was inaccurate information in your
post, not making something up out of thin air (er, interpolating ;-)...like
you did!

> > Of course interpolation produces them how is that different than "the
> > addition of new data points"?  The definition of interpolation
> > REQUIRES that
> > additional data points be "produced" or, more accurately, "created".
>
> A requirement is something that is necessary in order to do the thing
> with the requirement. But creating additional data points is the result
> of an interpolation.

It would appear you agreeing with me by saying that "creating additional
data points is the result of an interpolation".  You obviously understand
the point.  As I said, the digital cameras (aside from the Fuji) do not
create additional data points, they only changing the values of these data
points.  I believe we disagree on whether this is really interpolation or
not.

> But
> my original question was about resolution.

OK, I'll go back to your original question:

"Assuming you want a 24x20 print @300dpi you need
24*20*300*300*8bit/channel*3channels=124Mbytes of data. The digital
camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes. This is about 124/6=20,
i.e. 19 out of 20 pixels have to be interpolated. That sounds quite
unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and
throughs their MF scannera away to go digital?"

I believe we got the arithmetic straight in other posts.  The color depth is
not relevant to resolution.  A pixel is a pixel, no matter how many bits are
used to represent it (providing the number of bits is > 0), so take that out
of the equation for resolution.

A 6M pixel camera, assume 2000 x 3000, will give you a very nice 8x10-11x14,
but that's about the limits unless you use Genuine Fractals you won't get
very good looking images above that.  For general reception (candid) shots,
a digital "35mm equivalent" should work OK, but I certainly would not use it
for formals.

In general, MF lenses typically don't have as high a resolution as 35mm
lenses, so the increase in film size does not scale linearly to resolution
on the film.  You certainly will get better images with MF, no doubt about
it.  I scan MF at 2540SPI and routinely print 24x24 even larger.  2540 x
2.25/24 = 238 PPI to the printer.  At 4000SPI, you may run into grain/grain
aliasing (I'd be interested what others have to say about this...) on
certain films.  I do with 35mm films which I scan at 5080.

To answer your question, no, I would not give up my scanner for a digital
camera yet.  When the digital cameras get to 16M pixels, I will consider
getting one...but I will probably always use film anyway, since I shoot
mostly B&W these days, and I don't do weddings any more.

I would easily use digital for commercial work though.  Typically, most
commercial work doesn't require much enlargement, but it really depends on
what the client expects for an end result.

I hope that gives you more of an answer to your original question.




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.