[filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints

["" <derek_c@cix.co.uk>]

I'm very sure!

The Pro 70 was the first consumer digicam with CFII and hence Microdrive
compatibility, it's that old :-)

It has a great lens and RAW capability so can dodge JPEG artifacts
altogether.

I know it's pushing the accepted wisdom, but people have mistaken the
pictures for commercial posters so it's not just my opinion.

And I meant 13x19, A3+ or B+ size - that was a typo.


In article <IMEKIBPDGJAEFIHJOLKMKELMCLAA.laurie@advancenet.net>,
laurie@advancenet.net (LAURIE SOLOMON) wrote:

> >I've produced very acceptable 13x9s from a 1.68 megapixel camera, the
> Canon
> Pro 70.
>
> Are you sure it is 1.68 megapixels?  That is so low that I doubt they
> are
> even selling digital cameras with that few megapixel capacity.
> As for what is or is not very acceptible depends subjectively on one's
> tastes and standards; besides 13x9 is a somewhat smaller image than a
> 13x19,
> although 13x9 may be pushing the envelope for a 1-2 megapixel camera
> since
> the typical wisdom is that you need at least 3 megapixels to produce a
> satisfactory 8x10.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of derek_c@cix.co.uk
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 11:55 AM
> To: laurie@advancenet.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints
>
>
> I've produced very acceptable 13x9s from a 1.68 megapixel camera, the
> Canon Pro 70.
>
> Yes, when you get up close you can see staircasing from the lack of
> resolution, but in practice you don't examine big pictures close up.
>
> And for me the complete absence of film grain makes all the difference.
>
> In article <26.40448af6.2cc5e0c1@aol.com>, HMSDOC@aol.com () wrote:
>
> > I suspect I will 'go digital' sometime in the next year or two.  My
> > question
> > regards what type of print output quality I can expect from digital.
> >
> > I print on an Epson 2200 at sizes of up to 13x19 inches.  In reality,
> > I
> > tend
> > to leave an inch margin or so around the image, so lets say an image
> > size of
> > 11x17 inches.  "Conventional" teaching with scans (and I suppose that
> > this
> > could be part of the answer..that the conventional holds with scans
> > but
> > not direct
> > digital acquisition) is that for critical sharpness you should be able
> > to
> > send 300ppi to the printer.  Say this is overkill and you really only
> > need 250
> > ppi.  By my calculations you would still need 11 megapixels fo an
> > 11x17
> > image at
> > 250ppi.   Yet everyone raves at the output of even the Canon 10D at
> > significantly less resolution.  So is the conventional teaching
> > incorrect when it comes
> > to direct digital capture?  Perhaps more importantly, how many
> > megapixels are
> > needed for an extremely sharp 11x17 inch print?  I realize there are
> > other
> > benefits to digital capture as it translates to printing, such as lack
> > of grain,
> > but sharpness is quite important to me as well.  I would appreciate
> > any
> > help
> > in how to look at this as I think about getting a digital body.  Right
> > now I
> > am using a 1V and a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus.  A DS1 at 14 or so
> > megapixels and full frame sensor is way too expensive for me...but if
> > a
> > new Canon EOS 3
> > type digital body were to come out I could see spending up to $2500 or
> > so.
> >
> > Howard

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