Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 9:04 AM -0700 9/9/99, Frank Conley wrote: >With all the positive talk on the high quality of inkjet prints, I'm >wondering what the correlation is to digital cameras. I saw the >following note posted on Macintouch: > >"Yashica's Samurai 2100DG is a 2.1-megapixel digital camera with a 4x >optical/4x digital zoom lens, optical and LCD viewfinders and more for >$899. USB support is provided via Lexar's JumpShot USB Cable." > >2.1 megapixels sounds like a lot! Does anyone know how that resolution >compares to film? Not very well. Each pixel of a digital camera only does one color, and so at best you have only 700K of information points; usually it is less, like 1/4. About 500K. A film scanner like Nikon's LS-2000 will give you about 2500 x 3800 pixels, each with information from all colors, or 9.5M points. Each point in a digital camera usually gives you less information (bit depth) than each point of a film scanner, so your digital camera will give you less than 5% of the information a (now selling for) $1000US scanner will. Drum scanners can extract almost another order of information, depending on the quality of the original. Digital cameras are not up to P&S level yet, by some distance. * Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography & Design /###\ mailto:henningw@archiphoto.com |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com