[filmscanners] RE: Film Recorders (3 year wait)

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> Tells moi that
> any claims of some
> absurd numbers like 50-100MP are very much off the wall.

Mac,

True if you are comparing them "off the wall" ;-)

Sorry, I couldn't resist...  Anyway, you need to also match the M pixel
number with a format size, otherwise, there is no comparison.  I have 35mm
sized images (actually 36mm square) that are around 50M pixels, from a 7k x
7k scanning back.  They are not as good as film in certain aspects, and are
better than film in other aspects.

50-100M pixels is not absurd at all, depending on what your goal is.  A LOT
of people would be very happy with 4x6 prints from a 6M pixel camera...even
up to 5x7, no doubt.  But, if you are trying to make a 20 x 24 size print
from a 12M pixel camera (even true pixels), you end up with only 166PPI to
the printer on the long side.  That doesn't include any cropping either.
Yes you can use "rezzing up" programs like Genuine Fractals, but they can
not create detail in the image that was not there in the first place,
period.

For most prosumer work, and obviously happy snaps, 12-16M pixels will work
fine, even Bayer pattern pixels (that is in a 35mm format), but for some
commercial work and fine art, I believe many more pixels are really needed,
how many, is really up to the application and the quality of work one wants.

Austin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body