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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Skip M posted:
"Crownfield" wrote in message ... Harvey wrote: "Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it produces a 24 meg JPEG file... impossible. -- Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Skip M posted:
"Crownfield" wrote in message ... Harvey wrote: "Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it produces a 24 meg JPEG file... impossible. -- Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Petros" wrote in message ... Skip M posted: "Crownfield" wrote in message ... Harvey wrote: "Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it produces a 24 meg JPEG file... impossible. Why would it be impossible? |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"Petros" wrote in message ... Skip M posted: "Crownfield" wrote in message ... Harvey wrote: "Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it produces a 24 meg JPEG file... impossible. Why would it be impossible? |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
"Petros" wrote in message
... Skip M posted: "Crownfield" wrote in message ... Harvey wrote: "Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it produces a 24 meg JPEG file... impossible. -- Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos You're right, it's a 20.8, I was misremembering, I thought the last ones I worked on were 23.8. As far as a RAW file, it is much larger. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
"Petros" wrote in message
... Skip M posted: "Crownfield" wrote in message ... Harvey wrote: "Donald Brummel" wrote in message ink.net... Sigh, if they "easily beat film" what is point of the newer 4800 dpi film/slide scanners? A 2700 DPI (ie, Nikon Coolscan III) scanner gets you about 28 Meg per negative/slide. That is only good for an 8x10. Barely, really just a nice 5x7. 28Meg? By my calculations a 2700DPI from a 35mm slide etc. would give something like 3500 x 2500 (give or take), which is about 8.5MPix you and i think in terms of pixel dimensions, like 3000 x 2000. some people think image quality is measured by file size. In that case, the 20D is competitive by Mr. Brummel's standards, it produces a 24 meg JPEG file... impossible. -- Petros Ap' ola prin ipirche o Logos You're right, it's a 20.8, I was misremembering, I thought the last ones I worked on were 23.8. As far as a RAW file, it is much larger. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry" wrote in message ews.com... 8 megapixel vs 35MM? I didn't know there had to be a competition. I use an 8mp digital all the time and can say this with confidence: Is it handier? YES Is it easier? after the initial learning curve YES Does it match 35mm resolution? NO For the work I do, digital (with a GOOD P&S) is better because I dont need to hassle with changing filters or changing film when the light changes, and the ZLR I use has enough range that I dont feel the need to change lenses. So I get to take the following out of my camera bag: 6 filters 4 lenses several boxes of film and replace them with 1. a card to use with manual white balance 2. memory 3. spare battery(ies) Perhaps if the 2/3 sensor in my camera was LARGER I could come close, but if I want something bigger than 11x14" in my prints I would still lean toward 35mm (with good film, which is getting harder and harder to find on the shelf, by the way). -- Larry Lynch Mystic, Ct. You may be able to say it with confidence, but your equipment's limitations curtail its veracity, as you note in your last paragraph. Some digital equipment at 8mp, for one reason or another, won't equal the best of film. Some will, and in some uses, possibly exceed it. I get better 16x20 images from my 20D than I did from my 1n with Ilford XP-2, a 400 ISO film. Will I get better 16x20s than from Ektar 25? I don't know, since I can't make that comparison. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
"Larry" wrote in message ews.com... 8 megapixel vs 35MM? I didn't know there had to be a competition. I use an 8mp digital all the time and can say this with confidence: Is it handier? YES Is it easier? after the initial learning curve YES Does it match 35mm resolution? NO For the work I do, digital (with a GOOD P&S) is better because I dont need to hassle with changing filters or changing film when the light changes, and the ZLR I use has enough range that I dont feel the need to change lenses. So I get to take the following out of my camera bag: 6 filters 4 lenses several boxes of film and replace them with 1. a card to use with manual white balance 2. memory 3. spare battery(ies) Perhaps if the 2/3 sensor in my camera was LARGER I could come close, but if I want something bigger than 11x14" in my prints I would still lean toward 35mm (with good film, which is getting harder and harder to find on the shelf, by the way). -- Larry Lynch Mystic, Ct. You may be able to say it with confidence, but your equipment's limitations curtail its veracity, as you note in your last paragraph. Some digital equipment at 8mp, for one reason or another, won't equal the best of film. Some will, and in some uses, possibly exceed it. I get better 16x20 images from my 20D than I did from my 1n with Ilford XP-2, a 400 ISO film. Will I get better 16x20s than from Ektar 25? I don't know, since I can't make that comparison. -- Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I need to transfer my digital files to 35mm slides and negatives output and other film format outputs? | Chris | Digital Photography | 5 | September 25th 04 07:43 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 274 | July 30th 04 12:26 AM |
Digital quality (vs 35mm): Any real answers? | Toralf | Digital Photography | 213 | July 28th 04 06:30 PM |
Will digital photography ever stabilize? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 37 | June 30th 04 08:11 PM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |