Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]From: Shawn London <srlondon@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 06:34 Subject: [Leica] Re: [Leica[ paperless??? > Actually, scanning film in the consumer-level slide/negative > scanners that many people on the LUG use such as the Nikon > Coolscan/Polaroid models/etc. are quite a different proposition > entirely. Not with respect to the points that Jim was attempting to make, concerning image file size, transfer speed, and the like. > One additional thing to consider here is that while a > digital camera can consider itself a "2 megapixel" camera > as many do these days, it is important to keep in mind > that this is the device's CCD pixel density ... What is really important to keep in mind is that it's the subjective quality of the image that matters, not the pixel count. People who count pixels in digital cameras are the exact counterparts in the digital world of people who count lines per millimeter in the film world. That is, equipment geeks, for the most part. > The bottom line is that, as a recent article pointed > out (I wish I could remember where I read this), that > you would need a digital camera with a CCD pixel > resolution of three times its stated value to equal > the resolution of a given negative/slide scanner image. It is important to think in terms of the resolution required for a given application, not in terms of the absolute maximum resolution that is theoretically possible. The former makes all the difference in viewing an image, whereas the latter is quite irrelevant. The article you read apparently was unaware of the differences in chrominance versus luminance acuity in human vision. The human retina also uses the RGB pattern, and so its chrominance acuity is at least three times worse than its luminance acuity--so the argument you cite above is specious. As I've said, I've seen all of these arguments before. -- Anthony