|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
The size of the resulting file is misleading, as it does not clarify many aspects one needs to know. It's a very simplistic method of determining the resolution usually used by those who either don't understand the underlining physical structure of the image file, or by those who use a very constant format (i.e. 8 bits per channel and 3 channels for example). In other words, it is silly to quantify an image by its file size. It would be equivalent to asking how fast can your car go and you responding by saying its tank can hold 30 gallons. Your main question is the comparison between the overall quality you would get from a MF negative versus that of a given digital camera. That's a subjective question and there is no simple answer. There are way too many variables. Are you printing the MF negative directly or digitizing it first? Is cost at all an issue (in order to get an 8,000 dpi scan you will be paying a hefty scanning fee, something I don't see a wedding photographer being able to justify). I guess one of the components of such a decision would come for the versatility of a digital camera compared to that of a MF camera. If the resulting quality is reasonably good (a completely subjective unit of measurement), you would be more productive using digital equipment. That of course implies you are also comfortable using computers and the tools available for making the digital imaging "versatile". If you don't feel comfortable with computers, I see little advantage and it will probably reduce your productivity considerably. Either way, I guess the point I am trying to make is that the numbers are somewhat irrelevant. The real issues are: Are the images acceptable? Can she work faster and better? Will her clients be more pleased with her photographs? If the answer to that is positive, who cares what size images are produced? gus -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:09 PM To: email@example.com Subject: Resolution Question >From Robert Meier: >Yep, just talked to a wedding photographer who was telling me she is thinking about going digital. That did really surprise me as their main argument to use MF is always the big negative. Now comparing a 6MPixel camera that produces 6Mpixel*12bit/pixel=9Mbytes with roughly (2*8000)^2*(3*12bit)=1100Mbytes (assuming a negative has an 'equivalent' of about 8000dpi) makes such a claim questionable. OK, I have some questions about resolution. When I scan a 35mm neg on my Nikon LS-30, via Vuescan of course, I get a file which is just over 35MB, uncompressed, TIFF. That is at the (almost) 2700 dpi setting. 1. How many pixels is that? 2. How does it compare to a digital image, for example, the 6MPixel camera mentioned? Appreciate the clarification. Bill - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users