Winsor Crosby wrote:
> <snip> I did my own comparison
> between images from my OM4T and a 5MP Coolpix 5700. That was a handy
> ratio because a 4000 dpi scan of a 35mm slide is very close twice as
> big as a 5MP image. So I could study a 100% view digital image side by
> side with a 50% view scanned image in photoshop and the details were
> the same size. It was very easy then to make a comparison. <snip>
Again, I don't think scanning a negative at 4000 dpi does film any justice at
all (please see previous e-mails). It's simply not a level playing field.
> This is really not a realistic view of printing. You are lucky to get
> 150 -200 dpi in a commercial print. I am not aware of any printing
> process that will reproduce 700 dpi. And this is not fair to the film
> camera if I understand what you intend to do. You are talking about
> taking a section of a print that is limited to about 200 dpi at best
> and scan it into a digital file and then compare it with a section of a
> digital camera file. As enthusiastic as I am about digital I would not
> be that mean to my OM. But maybe I misunderstood.
I don't know how they print film photos off nowadays, but I had assumed it was
still a process of development, rather than printing. This being the case, if
you "develop" an image from a negative to a 24" x 18" print, then what you
should get is effectively an infinity-dpi enlarged reproduction of the negative
image.
If developers now "print" rather than "develop", then I take your point 100%,
and any comparison between a printed film image and a digital one is
meaningless.
Assuming commercial printers can only "print" digital images at 200 dpi then
they will lose quality because of it. That's bad luck for digital camera users,
I suppose, but it's the end product that needs to be compared...
Regards,
Simon
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|