----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Meier <robert_meier_photo@yahoo.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:51 PM
Subject: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/commercial
photography
> I have been talking with a few wedding and commercial photographers who
> expressed their intention to go digital. Cameras mentioned were Fuji S1
> and Nikon D1x both with 6 Mpixel. Now these same photographers, as all
> others, say MF is absolutely necessary for the big enlargments. This
> seems to be a contradiction as the digital cameras mentioned only
> produce approx. a 6M*12bit=9Mbyte file compared to about
> (2*4000)^2*36bit=274Mbytes for a 4000dpi scan or approx 1000Mbytes
> assuming film has an 'equivalent' of about 8000dpi.
> Assuming you want a 24x20 print @300dpi you need
> 24*20*300*300*8bit/channel*3channels=124Mbytes of data. The digital
> camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes. This is about 124/6=20,
> i.e. 19 out of 20 pixels have to be interpolated. That sounds quite
> unresonable to me. Does anybody have any experience with that and
> throughs their MF scannera away to go digital?
"...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes..."
6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3 bytes/pixel
it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8.
Bob Wright
>
> Also do you have any idea what the going hourly rate for wedding
> photographer and commercial photographers is?
>
> Robert
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
>
>
