Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>I give up! Just read the following and it says it all! > >>Yes, you can get better resolution with film and a drum >>scanner, but hey, isn't that digital technology too!!?? Why are you >>comparing digital to digital? I was comparing film to digital. >> >>Peter K. > >Jim > >PS... I hope the most of you enjoy my comments, from the inside, on digital >imaging. I try to explain it without getting bogged down in details. Most >numbers are approximations, but close. The digital system equivalent of >film systems is indeed a long way off. Digital totes a lot of baggage. It >takes a hellova lot of 1's and 0's to equal film. And then you have to put >it somewhere. It will require a breakthrough (we are working as hard as we >can) in technology to close the film/digital gap. I work deep in the bowels >of digital photo electronics. But I photograph with Leica M and R, and 4x5 >Linhof. I own a Nikon CP900 digital. I think the batteries died from non-use. > >Jim again > Jim, There was a quite involved thread on the Olympus mailing list I used to belong to several months ago. The conclusion was just as you stated -- that digital imaging that would provide comprable resolution to a 36x24mm film gate is quite a ways off. Among reasons given were the HUGE size of the CCD array (about 50 megapixels) -- an almost zero count of dead pixels -- dark current -- time to read out the CCD array -- storage -- etc. This is assuming a cost to make it competitive with a comprable 35mm film based camera. Mark Hammons