RE: Digicam vs. Scanner resolutions

["Ed Engberg" <eengberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This discussion reminds me of when CCD's becan to replace tube sensors in
professional video cameras.  Plumbicon tubes had reached a very high level
of quality in studio video cameras.

I spent a National Association of Broadcasters convention showing the latest
of this type of camera being recorded into the first digital video recorder.
It was a still recorder and recorded the full video quality at 3 times
subcarrier sampling for NTSC.  People were amazed at the quality of the
recordings and I actually saw some view our high resolution monitor screen
using a magnifying glass.

Then came the CCD cameras.  Much smaller and much lower power consumption.
The picture was significantly inferior.  But, the important thing, the
reduced size, much lower power consumption and lower cost drove CCD cameras
to where they are today.  It took years before the initial disadvantages of
picture quality could improve to what we had experienced with good tube
cameras.

The same is happening today.  I am sure some of you will argue with me but I
can tell an 8x10 print from a digital camera immediately.  Look at the
dynamic range and digital processing.  The blacks will give away a digital
camera's picture immediately.  Sure this will diminish in the next few
years, but today with 6 and less megapixels it is not there yet.

For the pictures I want to turn into art work I always use a film camera.  A
properly scanned 35mm image will always look better than one taken by a
digital camera today.  Of course I use my digital camera but it serves its
purpose of being much smaller than my 35mm SLR and gives me immediate
feedback of the photo.  I am waiting for when a digital camera in the sub
$5,000 range can compare with film.

Ed


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