Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10

Subject: Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10
From: Jez.Cunningham@xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:40:08 +0200

My conclusion was that the numbers are just a distraction!  The subjective 
results are what count for me.  And that URL has a lot of good experimental 
evidence.

Acer 2720 (2700 dpi) scans of a Velvia slide give me A4 (~8x11) prints on my 
Epson 870 that my camera club can't tell from wet chemistry.  But I'm sure A3 
size would be a different story - I'd need Tom's 4000dpi scanner.

And an E-10 raw tiff file from CH Ling gave me a print that was almost as good 
- but not quite.  It was just one example, so I could be wrong.

So as with most new technology - wait for release 2.

br
jez




Please respond to olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                                                              
                                                              
                                                              
 To:      olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                             
                                                              
 cc:      (bcc: Jez CUNNINGHAM/BE/ALCATEL)                    
                                                              
                                                              
                                                              
 Subject: Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10                           
                                                              





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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz