Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Why a digital M
From: Frank.Dernie at (Frank Dernie)
Date: Wed Jul 14 00:14:19 2004
References: <>

Yea but look at the results - scanned film is nowhere near as good as 
you write. I use a Nikon 8000 scanner and scanned film 35 is very 
comparable to my 6mpxl EOS, better in some ways, worse in others. 
Scanned 6x7 negs have more resolution but are still inferior in some 
ways because of the grain.

On 14 Jul, 2004, at 02:12, Frank Filippone wrote:

> It was measured as 10MP per square inch... and a Pixel defined as in 
> any
> other graphics business. .... as a representation of RGB ( or other 
> color
> coordinate) ....  SO it is 10MP/sqIn * 1 1/2 sqIn/Neg * 3 Colors/pixel 
> for a
> total of 45MP ( as measured by the marketing companies trying to sell 
> pixels
> rather than perfrormance) for a 35mm Neg... and that was a bunch of 
> years
> ago with lower grade film than Velvia or Tmx100......
> Frank Filippone
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

Replies: Reply from masonster at (David Mason) ([Leica] Why a digital M)
In reply to: Message from red735i at (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Why a digital M)