I've got a 30mp digital camera

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:19:52 GMT, "Douglas" wrote:


"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1194297891.202774@ftpsrv1...
John Adams wrote:

Megapixels is 4536 * 6720 = 30481920 pixels or 30.48 Megapixels.

... of mush

Pretty much. You will probably get better results scanning at lower
resolution anyway. My Canaoscan 8400F does 3200 max but the results at
lower res are almost as good, take a fraction of the time and will print
just fine at the sizes I print. Mind you I have done some pano prints at
about 2.5 metres wide and it took just a few minutes work to take 6 shots,
stitch them together for a 90MP shot, lets see just how many weeks that
takes with slide film.


On of the real tragedies of consumer technology is that it puts scientific
equipment in the hands of the inexperienced. I guess we should all be
grateful nuclear power plants are still too expensive for most people.


Just wait till they get their hands on hydorgen producing home fuel
cells like the energy world is predicting!

Ever see Hydrogen explode??

Over 60% of a data coming from a film scanner is not pure image data but
"noise". The amount is higher when you use a flatbed to scan film. You only
need to run a program like "Noise Ninja" over a scanned image and save it,
to see the substantial difference in file size.

Recent films may have better scanning capabilities than traditional ones but
never will a scan of a 35 mm film, come close to producing image quality
produced by an 8 megapixel digital camera.

Douglas

wrote:

Beg Pardon..... But I have prints hanging all over the place dome with
a 6.2 megapixel camera. Fine, detailed and inkjet printed 13x19's and
16x20's printed on paper and indistinguishable from any traditional
film print I have ever seen.

Indistinguishable? Yea, sure, pull the other leg.

frederick wrote:

... of mush

Nope, results are very good. Until you get a slide scanner and test it
out your comments are invalid.

John Adams wrote:
frederick wrote:

... of mush

Nope, results are very good. Until you get a slide scanner and test it
out your comments are invalid.
lol - you dimwitted presumptuous troll.
Where is it that you get the idea that the posters to this
group were born yesterday?

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"Douglas" wrote in message
...

"Pete D" wrote in message
...


Recent films may have better scanning capabilities than traditional ones
but never will a scan of a 35 mm film, come close to producing image
quality produced by an 8 megapixel digital camera.

Douglas
You would need to tell the OP poster this, not, from me there is no
argument.

Peter,
Just because you posted a reply to a thread, doesn't give you ownership of
the thread. When I used your reply to piggy back and enhancement to what you
said, it was directed at *ALL* thread readers, not just you.

Had I wanted to communicate to you specifically, I would have used the
"reply to sender" instead of "reply to group" button in the menu bar and
discovered as I have in the past, you don't provide a valid e-mail address.

Douglas

"Douglas" wrote in message
...

"Pete D" wrote in message
...

"Douglas" wrote in message
...

"Pete D" wrote in message
...


Recent films may have better scanning capabilities than traditional ones
but never will a scan of a 35 mm film, come close to producing image
quality produced by an 8 megapixel digital camera.

Douglas
You would need to tell the OP poster this, not, from me there is no
argument.

Peter,
Just because you posted a reply to a thread, doesn't give you ownership of
the thread. When I used your reply to piggy back and enhancement to what
you said, it was directed at *ALL* thread readers, not just you.

Had I wanted to communicate to you specifically, I would have used the
"reply to sender" instead of "reply to group" button in the menu bar and
discovered as I have in the past, you don't provide a valid e-mail
address.

Douglas

Well gosh I wonder why Einstien, why would I want you emailing me.

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1194323911.455015@ftpsrv1...
John Adams wrote:
frederick wrote:

... of mush

Nope, results are very good. Until you get a slide scanner and test it
out your comments are invalid.
lol - you dimwitted presumptuous troll.
Where is it that you get the idea that the posters to this group were born
yesterday?


Cos he was??

Douglas wrote:

Recent films may have better scanning capabilities than traditional ones but
never will a scan of a 35 mm film, come close to producing image quality
produced by an 8 megapixel digital camera.

Douglas


Yea, sure, that's why high quality print shops use film drum scanners
instead of asking their clients to use digital cameras for their
artwork. Just so you know. I've been doing photography for 30 years and
have a technical college degree in printing production and advanced
courses in desktop publishing. I've also taken art courses and studio
photography. I was developing my own film and producing my own prints
when you were probably still in diapers.

M-M wrote:
And wait to see your results.

Results are good. I only have a 2.1mp Olympus 2020Z so need to get a
10mp DSLR before I can really compare. Want to lend me your Nikon D80?

Charles wrote:

It's not about resolution!



I agree, and that is why I never intend to upgrade to a fancy-schmancy
10mp Nikon when my 2.1mp Olympus is just as good. :/