Re: Digicam vs. Scanner resolutions

[Arthur Entlich <artistic-1@xxxxxxx>]

Medium format scanners which use a 4000 dpi sensor provide medium format 
scans at about 9000 x 9000 pixels for a 6x6cm scan and larger with 
longer film frames.

The scanner you mention below is fine for sill life or slow moving 
circumstances (1/125th second of slower shutter speed), but it won't due 
for faster shutter speed requirements, and what does it cost?

If this is a scanning back, it is working at an equivalent of 1/125th 
second, but it takes 4 minutes to do it, meaning the photographed object 
has to pretty much be dead.

It is nice to get a 378MB file in 4 minutes (I guess), but a 1/8th 
second equivalent shutter speed takes 32 minutes to produce.  By that 
time even a bowl of fruit is likely to go moldy ;-)

Sorry, I'll stick with my funny silver based cameras for now, which 
allow me to capture images in a fraction of a second.

I'm sure eventually CCD sensors and fast memory will make for much 
faster digital capture at these resolutions, but not yet.

Art

David Chien wrote:

> Damn.  Forgot which advertiser had their super high resolution digital 
> imaging system that could be used to 'scan' stills at 10,000x10,000+ 
> resolution.
> 
> They had an advertisement in one of those digital imaging magazines last 
> year which showed an extremely high-powered blowup of a small area of 
> their sample -- literally showing you the finest details.
> 
> Anyways, it the meantime, try betterlight.com or phaseone.com
> 
> eg. while this is only a 10,500x12,600 digital imager, it should get you 
> going in the right direction (the other one above I talked about goes 
> higher -- vaguely remembering it going to 15,000)
> 
> http://www.phaseone.com/en/PRODUCTS/scan/PowerPhaseFX.htm
> 
> For certain, you'll =easily= match and exceed 35mm film quality with 
> this 132MP imager ;)
> 
> -------------------
> 
> Anyways, as quoted from Photonics magazine article with a Kodak film 
> scientist, he currently says that estimates of how many MP film's upper 
> limit is is approximately 25MP (was 24.xx, but I've forgotten).  And 
> that's for the regular stuff not counting TechPan.
> 
> Realistically, ~8MP will start to match a quality P&S camera like an 
> Olympus Styus Epic, with both achieving ~50lp/mm of resolution in the 
> images created.
> 
> Naturally, since most 35mm SLR camera lenses of good quality go much 
> higher, to 100+lp/mm, you will need to increase the MP of the digital 
> caemra you use up to Kodak's figure of ~25MP to match the film and lens 
> combo you typically use, and accordingly, the resolution and quality 
> you've been getting from that film setup.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Most working professionals have bumped into the limit of traditional 
> desktop slide scanners, and thus have jumped up to things like drum 
> scans and Imacon Flextight (desktop drum-like scanners) film scanners 
> instead for better scans and resolution from their slides.
> 
> Similarly, professionals using digital cameras have jumped past the 
> usual lot of <6MP digicams into the world of high-end imagers like those 
> sold by BetterLight.com and Phaseone.com.  That's because physically, 
> you simply can not get more than 50lp/mm of resolution (or even 50lp/mm 
> of resolution) from any digtial camera with less than 8MP of image 
> information.  Since most pros want their work to exceed the general 
> quality of a basic 35mm P&S camera, those high-end imagers are usually 
> the way to go.
> 
> Happily, those imagers will easily exceed 35mm film and match medium 
> format without trouble.  You'll easiy be abel to match and exceed the 
> quality of work you achieve today with any 35mm camera setup, and be on 
> your way to nirvana.
> 


-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.