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 and scanning vs digital photography

From: "gary" <lists@lazygranch.com>

I suspect the "generations" effect is why it takes less resolution in a
DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at
16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally
exceeds 30MPixels.

I saw a website that compared drum to a dedicated film scanner, with the
claim that you really don't get the full stated resolution with a film

I've never seen a drum vs. 4000 ppi Nikon comparison that I thought showed a
ntoiceable or significant advantage to the drum scan. The differences are
very much on the order of counting angels on heads of pins.

And the 12.7 and 16MP Canons look a lot more like 645 than 35mm, in terms of
print quality at 12x18. (This guy is printing a lot bigger than I would, and
thus is agonizing over really minor differences.)


David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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.