Hi Jim:
I think you are right on this. I am not an expert on full resolution scans
or anything of the sort. In the motion picture world a 35mm frame can be
scaned to be 4k by 4k via laser scans. For example, Pleasantville spent 6
months scaning in and 6 months ouputing back to film to keep the 35mm
resolution on the fx. So I guess that being that the motion picture 35mm
frame is smaller than the 35mm photographic frame this may be the case for
the 4K X 4k...
And you may be right about the RGB information to achieve the large 24Megs
of resolution for the laser scans do 3 passes, although today they do 1 pass
scans but at the 2K resolution.
Still, this is just 35mm. I know there are other image sensors that are
larger than 35mm and even more expensive. But still, you can't beat 4X5's
and 8X10's. The cost of a nice 8X10 gear I bet is cheaper than the best
sensors around.
I am very hopeful for the digital "revolution". It has made me realize that
I can finaly experiment with images without resorting to chemicals, more
expensive everytime you look at the kodak pricing list. (I bet the printer
inks also get more expensive too for digital printers).
I forgot to mention that at 72 dpi resolution,our monitors, anything with
just a bit more resolution looks amazing. So a web image is not the best
proof of quality.
So to sumarize, I do embrace the digital revolution but do not generalize in
the statement that digital is better than film, for film encompasses more
than 35mm. Both have their place. For me to achieve some pictures, the way I
look at some subjects, I need my manual focusing, my Zuikos. A 35mm camera
with about 5 lenses cost me about the same as my C-5060, and I can't manualy
focus the damn thing. To have similar capabilities I would require an E-1
and a few lenses that would bring the cost to about 10 times my OM gear.
peace
David
> I figure a 35mm frame at 4000 ppi scan is good for 4000 x 6000 = 24,000,000
> individual areas of information each of which can be red, blue, or green.
> Since the individual pixels on a digital image sensor are either red, blue,
> or green (usually two green for each red and blue) I think the equivalent
> information density is equivalent to a 24 megapixel image sensor. Probably
> someone can correct me on this, but I hope I got it right...
>
> I think the best 35mm full-frame image sensor currently available yields
> about 14,000,000 pixels, so there is a ways to go to get the equivalent
> image. Now depending on what the film,lens, and techniques used is, there
> may be no information of value in some of those individual pixels (you may
> just be imaging the film grain, or be inside the lens's resolution limits,
> etc.) but the information is theoretically available. I think... I suppose
> its possible that a digital image at lower pixel density can look better, if
> each and every pixel is carrying useful information.
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|