[Leica] Re: [Leica[ paperless???

["Shawn London" <srlondon@yahoo.com>]

I think that you are much too blase about the importance of pixel count 
given the rather primitive state of CCD's today.  I will agree with you if
you say that the subjective difference between a drum scan and the results
of a high-end desktop film scanner are minimal in many cases.  However, you
don't have too look hard at all at the results of a 2.1 megapixel digital
camera to start seeing flaws concomitant with their lack of imaging
resolution.  Even modest enlargements cannot be made from a digicam file
without a significant loss of quality.

On the other hand, if you are using your cameras to make 3x5 prints you will
not notice a difference.  Perhaps I should not make any assumptions about
your own standards, as you have pointed out.

Your statements basically suggesting that requirements for resolution are
vastly overrated are nothing new... I recall hearing the same thing from
Kodak regarding the adequacy of the postage stamp-sized disc film negative a
number of years back.  And the guy browsing in the locla camera shop the
other day who told me that owning a camera is a waste of money these days
since the Kodak disposables take better pictures than the old camera I am
using anyway.

- ----------
> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:29:10 +0200
> From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: [Leica[ paperless???

> 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.