Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It depends on who you ask. All I know is that for me personally, I look at the 13x19 prints from my friend's 1Ds (11Mp) and my 11x14 prints using M lens and scanned at using the Nikon 4000 that they both look darn good. One is neither better than the other, they do look different. 1Ds is entirely grainless but then again Provia, even at 400F is fairly grain free too. Of course there are some people of the opinions that the 1Ds and the new 1Ds MkII is VASTLY better than 35mm, rivalling medium format. At least Michael Reichmann of Luminious Landscape is quite reasonable about discussions, but there are others who use Michael and other websites as proofs that how much better 11Mp is. e.g. http://www.leica-camera.com/discus_e/messages/2/95118.html?1100749479 Look under Pascal... He trashed me in another post because I told him my eyes tell me that my friends and my prints are different but neither one is "better." He said I was condescending and how dare I disagree with the experts :-) At 07:59 PM 11/17/2004, Doug Herr wrote: >on 11/17/04 5:51 PM, Rick Dykstra at rdcb37@dodo.com.au wrote: > > > what's the LUGs view on how 10.5 Mpix > > compares with good film? I enlarge from film to 20x30in, via a 6144 x > > 4096 scan. The digi back's sensor is way less pixels than this, by my > > calculations, good for around 8 x 12 at the same resolution. Not bad, > > but not as good as film. > > > >There isn't a direct correlation between pixels from scanned film and native >pixels. The scanned photo needs to have quite a few more pixels to make up >for the losses inherent in making the scan. // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please use richard at imagecraft.com)