A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

(Relatively) affordable, compact medium format 100MP camera



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 29th 21, 01:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default (Relatively) affordable, compact medium format 100MP camera

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

scanned MF film (4000dpi 6x6 = 144000mp; 5000dpi 6x6 = 180000mp).

Doesn't 4000 dpi of a 6cm x 6cm film give you 9449 x 9449 = 89
MP (6/2,54 * 4000)? That's far less than 144000 MP.

6 * 4000 = 24000 * 6 = 144000.


Isn't MF film 6 cm x 6 cm = 2.36 inch x 2.36 inch?


yep, although medium format film is usually referred to as 2 1/4".

film luddites are used to inaccuracies.

2.36 inch x 4000 dots/inch = 9448 pixel per side


yep.
  #24  
Old January 29th 21, 03:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default (Relatively) affordable, compact medium format 100MP camera

In article , Reader
wrote:

Zenza Bronica and Mamiya might wish to suggest that medium format also
includes 6cm x 4.5cm.


particularly pentax, where their 645d had the same size sensor as this
new camera.
  #26  
Old January 29th 21, 07:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default (Relatively) affordable, compact medium format 100MP camera

In article , Alfred
Molon wrote:

BTW, I'm wondering if the advanced 45+ MP cameras of these days
give you (or even exceed) the image quality of film MF cameras
of the past. Is that the case?


yes, and has been for quite some time.
  #27  
Old January 29th 21, 08:30 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Neil[_9_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 521
Default (Relatively) affordable, compact medium format 100MP camera

On 1/29/2021 12:28 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Reader says...

On 28/01/2021 23:55, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Neil says...
On 1/28/2021 12:57 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article ,
says...
scanned MF film (4000dpi 6x6 = 144000mp; 5000dpi 6x6 = 180000mp).
Doesn't 4000 dpi of a 6cm x 6cm film give you 9449 x 9449 = 89
MP (6/2,54 * 4000)? That's far less than 144000 MP.

6 * 4000 = 24000 * 6 = 144000.
Isn't MF film 6 cm x 6 cm = 2.36 inch x 2.36 inch?

2.36 inch x 4000 dots/inch = 9448 pixel per side

Zenza Bronica and Mamiya might wish to suggest that medium format also
includes 6cm x 4.5cm.


BTW, I'm wondering if the advanced 45+ MP cameras of these days
give you (or even exceed) the image quality of film MF cameras
of the past. Is that the case?

They're different media, with different qualities. Film was never
intended to be scanned for output, and optical enlargements are far
better (within a range) than smaller prints. So, the smaller the print,
the less information the image contains.

Other qualities are just differences between the media, and comparisons
are as meaningless as comparisons between oil painting and sculpture, as
far as I'm concerned. Personal preferences are OK.

--
best regards,

Neil
  #28  
Old January 29th 21, 09:20 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default (Relatively) affordable, compact medium format 100MP camera

In article , Neil
wrote:

BTW, I'm wondering if the advanced 45+ MP cameras of these days
give you (or even exceed) the image quality of film MF cameras
of the past. Is that the case?

They're different media,


obviously, however, that's irrelevant.

with different qualities.


where 'different' is that one is much better than the other.

Film was never
intended to be scanned for output,


irrelevant.

the fact is that scanning film can capture all of the information
contained in it.

and optical enlargements are far
better (within a range) than smaller prints.


optical enlargements can be any size and not necessarily better than
scanned film that is digitally printed. in fact, it's likely worse.

So, the smaller the print,
the less information the image contains.


not necessarily.

Other qualities are just differences between the media, and comparisons
are as meaningless as comparisons between oil painting and sculpture, as
far as I'm concerned. Personal preferences are OK.


preferences are ok.

invalid comparisons and factually false data is not.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
100mp medium format digitals. High priced real, or just priced for the bracket? Eric Stevens Digital Photography 5 April 14th 20 12:31 AM
I LOVE how Fuji's 100mp medium format raises the fur on FF'rs necks FlipChip(TM) Digital Photography 0 May 27th 19 07:22 AM
I LOVE how Fuji's 100mp medium format raises the fur on FF'rs necks FlipChip(TM) Digital Photography 0 May 25th 19 01:50 PM
Phase launches 100mp med. format camera, morons comment on it Sandman Digital Photography 10 January 5th 16 04:20 PM
Phase launches 100mp med. format camera, morons comment on it android Digital Photography 0 January 4th 16 06:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.