Shouldn't it be that a 4 Megapixel scan is equivalent to a 16 megapixel camera
and
that an equivalent 3260 x 4472 pixel scan for 35mm would be 14.6 x 4 pixels
for an
equivalent 58.4 megapixel digital camera??
Mark H.
>
>
> Tom - it's worth saying it again, but pixel counting is hijacked by digital
> camera marketing
brochures! For digital cameras they count the total number of photosensitive
cells in the CCD - and
they are in groups of 4 with one for red, two for green and
> one for blue. (Don't ask me why - the answer is on the web - somewhere!).
> For scanners we count
one pixel as being able to represent any colour. So when you think about a
4megapixel camera
compare it to a 16megapixel scan...
>
> For a better explanation and loads of experimental examples, see:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
>
> And to quote directly from this site: "Film is scanned with each pixel
> have a red, green and
blue value, so the 3260 x 4472 pixel scan of the 35mm film is 14.6
> megapixels. But these are not the same as the pixels in a digital camera.
> In a digital camera,
each pixel is ony a red, or a green, or a blue pixel. Digital cameras have 50
0reen, 25% blue and
25% red pixels (thus called RGBG). So a 1 megapixel digital
> camera has 1 million red + green + blue pixels. Thus, the 35mm scan has
> 14.6 * 3 pixels or 43.8
megapixels in digital camera equivalent pixels. "
>
> So, do we have to buy an E-10 yet? Yes, for fun, but keep the OM and the
> scanner for serious
stuff!
> best regds
> jez
>
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|