I just read the article, and I have a few comments.
The main one is that all of us who think our 4000 ppi scanners, even
Imacoms, replace drum scans are whistling in the wind. The professional
drum scan of the Pentax medium format film shows a great deal more
detail then the Imacom 3200 ppi scan (which the author claims is better
than any other 4000 ppi CCD scan.)
However, that scan cost something like $300 US! It wouldn't take too
many of those to pay off a higher megapixel digital camera.
I think what the authors show is that a great deal of the size of a
scanned film is capture of the structure of the film (grain) which does
not necessarily provide more useful data, while the digital image is
pretty much "pure data", resulting in a much smaller file to work with.
Further, if one is working with prints smaller than about 13 x 20 the
full frame (35mm) 11 megapixel sensor digital image wins against the
medium format film image in print quality, work flow and cost.
In making larger size prints, the waters are a bit murkier, for now, but
over the next short while as resolution of digital sensors improves,
film will indeed be a second best for quality. Of course, other issue
remain, such as storage technologies, but there is no doubt that digital
image capture is rapidly eclipsing film, both in quality and cost (for a
heavy shooter). For the less intensive shooter, film per image will
remain cheaper for some time to come.
Art
Andre wrote:
> This one will spark heated debate...
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
