Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers?

"Zebedee" wrote:
"Chris Loffredo" wrote:
Zebedee wrote:

I have 50x60 (cm) B&W photo paper which I use for the right pictures.
I doubt 3 (or 6) megapixels will do the job...

50cm = 19.7 inches
60cm = 23.6 inches

19.7 x 150 = 2955 pixels
23.6 x 150 = 3540 pixels

2955 x 3540 = 10.4607 megapixels

It could be a little stretch for a 6mp camera or you could even use the
Kodak 14mp SLR

Having said that, it's a really unusual size and more suited to medium
format than for 35mm.

20x24 is a pitiful joke from 35mm B&W films, even Tech Pan. If one has any
sense of quality imaging at all, 11x14 is MF (645) territory. 20x24 from 6x7
would be OK, but would look better if you used LF.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Zebedee" wrote:
"Chris Loffredo" wrote:
Zebedee wrote:

I have 50x60 (cm) B&W photo paper which I use for the right pictures.
I doubt 3 (or 6) megapixels will do the job...

50cm = 19.7 inches
60cm = 23.6 inches

19.7 x 150 = 2955 pixels
23.6 x 150 = 3540 pixels

2955 x 3540 = 10.4607 megapixels

It could be a little stretch for a 6mp camera or you could even use the
Kodak 14mp SLR

Having said that, it's a really unusual size and more suited to medium
format than for 35mm.

20x24 is a pitiful joke from 35mm B&W films, even Tech Pan. If one has any
sense of quality imaging at all, 11x14 is MF (645) territory. 20x24 from 6x7
would be OK, but would look better if you used LF.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

I decided to settle on 3 megapixels. It's adequate for my needs and as with
slides, I ensure my photos are perfect before I squeeze the button. I claim
3 megapixels is the perfect equivalent of 35mm for most purposes. 6mp just
eats up storage space for no visible advantage.

What specific camera did you settle on? I settled on a modest but good enough
5mp, 'cos i thought if I go for a high end 5mp then i might as well get an 8mp,
and if i go for an 8mp then I might as well get a dSLR, and if I go for a dSLR
I might as well have one of the better one, so it had to stop at one point.

BTW, it's a wild claim to say that 3mp is "the perfect equivalent" of 35mm for
most purposes. To print 8x10 at 300dpi you need 7.2 megapixels. 3mp, or even
2mp, is good enough if you only need them displayed on a monitor. I personally
display images on a calibrated 21" monitor and find that I really don't need
prints. I had a home computer in the early 80s and got a PDA many years ago so
personally I'm well adapted to the paperless existence. In fact, I really
dislike writing and I'm quite comfortable with typing. So yes, for my usage,
5mp, or even 2mp, would be adequate, but i wouldn't call it a "perfect
equivalent" to 35mm.

I decided to settle on 3 megapixels. It's adequate for my needs and as with
slides, I ensure my photos are perfect before I squeeze the button. I claim
3 megapixels is the perfect equivalent of 35mm for most purposes. 6mp just
eats up storage space for no visible advantage.

What specific camera did you settle on? I settled on a modest but good enough
5mp, 'cos i thought if I go for a high end 5mp then i might as well get an 8mp,
and if i go for an 8mp then I might as well get a dSLR, and if I go for a dSLR
I might as well have one of the better one, so it had to stop at one point.

BTW, it's a wild claim to say that 3mp is "the perfect equivalent" of 35mm for
most purposes. To print 8x10 at 300dpi you need 7.2 megapixels. 3mp, or even
2mp, is good enough if you only need them displayed on a monitor. I personally
display images on a calibrated 21" monitor and find that I really don't need
prints. I had a home computer in the early 80s and got a PDA many years ago so
personally I'm well adapted to the paperless existence. In fact, I really
dislike writing and I'm quite comfortable with typing. So yes, for my usage,
5mp, or even 2mp, would be adequate, but i wouldn't call it a "perfect
equivalent" to 35mm.

20x24 is a pitiful joke from 35mm B&W films, even Tech Pan. If one has any
sense of quality imaging at all, 11x14 is MF (645) territory. 20x24 from 6x7
would be OK, but would look better if you used LF.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


Where would the dSLRs fit into this?

20x24 is a pitiful joke from 35mm B&W films, even Tech Pan. If one has any
sense of quality imaging at all, 11x14 is MF (645) territory. 20x24 from 6x7
would be OK, but would look better if you used LF.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


Where would the dSLRs fit into this?

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...
I decided to settle on 3 megapixels. It's adequate for my needs and as
with
slides, I ensure my photos are perfect before I squeeze the button. I
claim
3 megapixels is the perfect equivalent of 35mm for most purposes. 6mp
just
eats up storage space for no visible advantage.

What specific camera did you settle on? I settled on a modest but good
enough
5mp, 'cos i thought if I go for a high end 5mp then i might as well get an
8mp,
and if i go for an 8mp then I might as well get a dSLR, and if I go for a
dSLR
I might as well have one of the better one, so it had to stop at one
point.

BTW, it's a wild claim to say that 3mp is "the perfect equivalent" of 35mm
for
most purposes. To print 8x10 at 300dpi you need 7.2 megapixels. 3mp, or
even
2mp, is good enough if you only need them displayed on a monitor. I
personally
display images on a calibrated 21" monitor and find that I really don't
need
prints. I had a home computer in the early 80s and got a PDA many years
ago so
personally I'm well adapted to the paperless existence. In fact, I really
dislike writing and I'm quite comfortable with typing. So yes, for my
usage,
5mp, or even 2mp, would be adequate, but i wouldn't call it a "perfect
equivalent" to 35mm.

Just why would anybody print at more than 150dpi when that's the maximum the
eye can see?

--
Yours

Zebedee

(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...
I decided to settle on 3 megapixels. It's adequate for my needs and as
with
slides, I ensure my photos are perfect before I squeeze the button. I
claim
3 megapixels is the perfect equivalent of 35mm for most purposes. 6mp
just
eats up storage space for no visible advantage.

What specific camera did you settle on? I settled on a modest but good
enough
5mp, 'cos i thought if I go for a high end 5mp then i might as well get an
8mp,
and if i go for an 8mp then I might as well get a dSLR, and if I go for a
dSLR
I might as well have one of the better one, so it had to stop at one
point.

BTW, it's a wild claim to say that 3mp is "the perfect equivalent" of 35mm
for
most purposes. To print 8x10 at 300dpi you need 7.2 megapixels. 3mp, or
even
2mp, is good enough if you only need them displayed on a monitor. I
personally
display images on a calibrated 21" monitor and find that I really don't
need
prints. I had a home computer in the early 80s and got a PDA many years
ago so
personally I'm well adapted to the paperless existence. In fact, I really
dislike writing and I'm quite comfortable with typing. So yes, for my
usage,
5mp, or even 2mp, would be adequate, but i wouldn't call it a "perfect
equivalent" to 35mm.

Just why would anybody print at more than 150dpi when that's the maximum the
eye can see?

--
Yours

Zebedee

(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)

Zebedee wrote:

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...
I decided to settle on 3 megapixels. It's adequate for my needs and as
with
slides, I ensure my photos are perfect before I squeeze the button. I
claim
3 megapixels is the perfect equivalent of 35mm for most purposes. 6mp
just
eats up storage space for no visible advantage.

What specific camera did you settle on? I settled on a modest but good
enough
5mp, 'cos i thought if I go for a high end 5mp then i might as well get an
8mp,
and if i go for an 8mp then I might as well get a dSLR, and if I go for a
dSLR
I might as well have one of the better one, so it had to stop at one
point.

BTW, it's a wild claim to say that 3mp is "the perfect equivalent" of 35mm
for
most purposes. To print 8x10 at 300dpi you need 7.2 megapixels. 3mp, or
even
2mp, is good enough if you only need them displayed on a monitor. I
personally
display images on a calibrated 21" monitor and find that I really don't
need
prints. I had a home computer in the early 80s and got a PDA many years
ago so
personally I'm well adapted to the paperless existence. In fact, I really
dislike writing and I'm quite comfortable with typing. So yes, for my
usage,
5mp, or even 2mp, would be adequate, but i wouldn't call it a "perfect
equivalent" to 35mm.

Just why would anybody print at more than 150dpi when that's the maximum the
eye can see?

Because dpi is often misleading. For some older printers
each color was printed as a separate dot. So 150 dpi meant
that pure red, for instance, is only at 50 dpi.

------ Paul J. Gans

Zebedee wrote:

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...
I decided to settle on 3 megapixels. It's adequate for my needs and as
with
slides, I ensure my photos are perfect before I squeeze the button. I
claim
3 megapixels is the perfect equivalent of 35mm for most purposes. 6mp
just
eats up storage space for no visible advantage.

What specific camera did you settle on? I settled on a modest but good
enough
5mp, 'cos i thought if I go for a high end 5mp then i might as well get an
8mp,
and if i go for an 8mp then I might as well get a dSLR, and if I go for a
dSLR
I might as well have one of the better one, so it had to stop at one
point.

BTW, it's a wild claim to say that 3mp is "the perfect equivalent" of 35mm
for
most purposes. To print 8x10 at 300dpi you need 7.2 megapixels. 3mp, or
even
2mp, is good enough if you only need them displayed on a monitor. I
personally
display images on a calibrated 21" monitor and find that I really don't
need
prints. I had a home computer in the early 80s and got a PDA many years
ago so
personally I'm well adapted to the paperless existence. In fact, I really
dislike writing and I'm quite comfortable with typing. So yes, for my
usage,
5mp, or even 2mp, would be adequate, but i wouldn't call it a "perfect
equivalent" to 35mm.

Just why would anybody print at more than 150dpi when that's the maximum the
eye can see?

Because dpi is often misleading. For some older printers
each color was printed as a separate dot. So 150 dpi meant
that pure red, for instance, is only at 50 dpi.

------ Paul J. Gans