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]

[filmscanners] Re: Film Recorders (3 year wait)

Date sent:              Sat, 11 May 2002 11:14:05 -0400
Send reply to:          filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
From:                   "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
To:                     doogle@doogle.com
Subject:                [filmscanners] RE: Film Recorders (3 year wait)

> > Tells moi that
> > any claims of some
> > absurd numbers like 50-100MP are very much off the wall.


> 50-100M pixels is not absurd at all, depending on what your goal is.  A LOT
> of people would be very happy with 4x6 prints from a 6M pixel camera...even
> up to 5x7, no doubt.  But, if you are trying to make a 20 x 24 size print....

All my comments in this thread are related to 35mm equivalents only.
Many critical photogs don't think that 35mm is suitable period for over 11x14. 
I tend to agree.
Certainly not for 20 x 24.
Again, only speaking of MP equivalent to 35mm here.

> For most prosumer work, and obviously happy snaps, 12-16M pixels will work
> fine,

Again, I feel that 12-16M "good" pixels is realistic equiv to 35mm film. So you 
can use files of this
size to pretty closely equal anything that you can with 35mm...


           Mac McDougald -- DOOGLE DIGITAL
  500 Prestwick Ridge Way # 39 - Knoxville, TN 37919
 doogle@doogle.com  865-540-1308  http://www.doogle.com

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.