ML Archiv: Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10

Olympus-OM

Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10

from Tom Scales

Subject:	Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10
From:	"Tom Scales" <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:48:05 -0500

Yep -- and i'm sure that is just around the corner <g>.

Tom

> 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.



< 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>
[OM] Scanner vs. E-10, Jez . Cunningham Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10, Mark Hammons Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10, Tom Scales <= Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10, Tom Scales Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10, C.H.Ling Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10, Jez . Cunningham Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10, C.H.Ling [OM] It ain't looking good..., Chris Charlton Re: [OM] It ain't looking good..., Jim Couch Re: [OM] It ain't looking good..., Chris Charlton Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10, Tom Scales Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10, Jez . Cunningham

Previous by Date:	Re: [OM] 200/4 vs. 2X-A (Was 100/2 vs. 85/2 in sharpness), frieder . faig
Next by Date:	RE: [OM] Re: [OT] PhotoPoint - dead or alive?, Walt Wayman
Previous by Thread:	Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10, Mark Hammons
Next by Thread:	Re: [OM] Scanner vs. E-10, Tom Scales
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]