Bill,
In my experience, scanning negs and slides are equally arduous. What makes
the difference for you?
-Mickey
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Clark" <wclark@xxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 11:13 AM
Subject: RE: [OM] How many pixels in a 35mm film image - Pop Photo weighs in
> I would disagree with scanning negatives. Who wants to wait and wait for
30
> meg files to scan, then dust and scratch removal, then photoshop, and on
we
> go. If I were to scan, I would scan slides, which the Epson 2450 does
> beautifully. You save $ and time with a film scanner. People will use
> digcams to get rid of teh intermediary scanning steps...I sure do.
>
> -Bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Gwinn [mailto:joegwinn@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: December 30, 2002 10:17 AM
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] How many pixels in a 35mm film image - Pop Photo weighs in
>
>
> On page 37 of the January 2003 issue of "Popolar Photography & Imaging"
> magazine (the "& Imaging" part is new) there is a letter to the editor
> ("Proof: John B") where one John B questions Pop Photo's contention that
the
> information content of a 35mm frame is 20-30 Mpixels (these will be
> marketing pixels), because he personally gets better photos with digital
> cameras. One assumes that his camera has far fewer mpix, although this
isn't
> stated. The letter was in response to an editorial in the November 2002
> issue of Pop Photo.
>
> The Editors' answer more or less recapitulates our computations, albeit
with
> less math detail, summarizing that 24 Mpix is for handheld SLR shots,
while
> 30 Mpix is for "optimal" situations. All this with ASA 100 color negative
> and slide films and a top-of-the-line 50mm lens set to its optimum
aperture,
> with camera on a heavy tripod with remote cable release. No mention of
> mirror lockup. Under less rigorous conditions, or with a 35mm
point&shoot,
> one gets 6-12 Mpix.
>
> In my analyses, I used 50 line pairs per millimeter as the typical
> performance of lenses, a conservative number, and ended up with 18 Mpix.
> Pop Photo instead tried to estimate the best that could be done in
practice,
> and got about double that.
>
> Assuming that the 30 Mpix is for a camera of 1:2:1 ratio, this is the
> equivalent of 15 million tricolor pixels, and the frame will be about 4743
x
> 3162.
>
> In all cases, the color accuracy of digital exceeds that of any film Pop
> Photo has tested.
>
> Pop Photo goes on to conclude that the lack of film grain plus the greater
> color accuracy leads many to choose "digital enlargements" over
"film-based
> enlargements". This part threw me. Who was talking of enlargement only?
> We were talking of the relative merits of film and digital cameras, and
one
> could read their conclusion to endorse scanning of the negatives, which is
> not supported by their other points.
>
> Perhaps the missing logical step is to note that at current price levels,
> the cheaper route to digital is to use a 35mm film camera and scan the
> negatives.
>
> Joe Gwinn
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|