Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks Frank. That's the kind of feedback that helps work this out. In the end it might come down to the point Ted has argued here recently. See the results with your own eyes and make a judgement. I look forward to making the comparison. Rick. On 23/11/2004, at 6:18 PM, Frank Dernie wrote: > The thing is Rick the fact that you have scanned the film at 6144x4096 > pixels does not mean that there is meaningful data at this resolution. > In absurdam if the frame was a uniform colour a scan of 1 pixel and a > scan of 6144x4096 pixels will contain the same data and would be > equivalent. > I have not found 35mm print film to have more data on it than my 6 > megapixel Canon, whatever scan resolution I chose to use. My scans > from slides have been better but not hugely so. > I am entirely prepared to believe, based on my own experience of > prints from scanned 35mm film and digital SLRs that the 10megapixel R > back will equal 35mm film in resolution. I have heard all the pseudo > technical absurdities about huge sampling rates but none of it > actually agrees with my actual experience of producing my own prints. > Frank > > > On 23 Nov, 2004, at 00:16, Rick Dykstra wrote: > >> Hi Alistair. You've posed exactly the question I've asked of Leica, >> though no response yet. >> >> The lab I use does high end scans (though not the highest - were not >> talking drum scans here) which are 6144 x 4096 pixels and around 75 >> to 100 MB in size (depending on the variety of colours I suppose). I >> get these printed to 20 x 30 inch. The DMR sensor is 3872 x 2576. >> So how can this sensor make images reproduced at 20 x 30 in of the >> same clarity as film scanned to 6144 x 4096? And I could get these >> trannies drum scanned to even higher standards. >> >> I'm not knocking the DMR - I want one or two - but will it be as good >> as my Velvia? I can't see how. Again, not necessarily a problem, I >> just need to know before I spend the money. :-) I've also heard it >> will be upgradeable and that's good. Any comments on this? >> >> Rick Dykstra, Australia >> >> >> On 22/11/2004, at 1:50 PM, firkin wrote: >> >>> Feli di Giorgio writes: >>>> I would be very happy with a 10-12MP full frame camera. >>>> Manageable file sizes, DOF of a 135, low noise at high ASA, due >>>> to the large size of individual receptors. I really don't need 20MP >>>> for what I do... >>> >>> The immediate question is what do you do that requires 10 to 12. I >>> mean this seriously, not as a jibe or insult. My mind tell me that >>> 10 to 12 seems about right, because I suspect (never tried and >>> therefore don't know) that you could print 16 x 20 at about this >>> level with 35mm happiness. Barry Thornton claimed that only really >>> "lucky" good 35mm negs could produce "perfect" images larger than >>> about 10 x 14 (I think) I remember thinking "I've got larger ones" >>> but then thinking but they are not all "perfect", so he may be >>> right. >>> Like many, I suspect I've been too worried about making big >>> enlargements, when smaller well crafted images would be "better" and >>> store much more easily !!!!! >>> This brings me back to my nagging question; will todays good film >>> scanners "match" a 10 mega pixel dedicated digital camera when you >>> view moderately large images side by side? >>> Alastair Firkin @ work ;-) >>> http://www.afirkin.com >>> http://www.familyofman2.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >