At 3:21 AM +0100 2/10/04, Listar wrote:
>Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 19:21:55 -0800
>Subject: [OM] Re: Nice 300/2.8 E-1 Picture
>From: Jim Brokaw <jbrokaw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>on 2/8/04 2:40 PM, David Cochran at cochran@xxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > Hi Adam:
> >
> > Not only film can compete but it can surpass this quality. A 35mm frame is
> > almost 4,000 X 4,000 pixels in sizes. If we throw in a medium format film or
> > 4X5, 8X10 etc., the large megapixel count will be let cold in the water.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
>
>I figure a 35mm frame at 4000 ppi scan is good for 4000 x 6000 = 24,000,000
>individual areas of information each of which can be red, blue, or green.
>Since the individual pixels on a digital image sensor are either red, blue,
>or green (usually two green for each red and blue) I think the equivalent
>information density is equivalent to a 24 megapixel image sensor. Probably
>someone can correct me on this, but I hope I got it right...
The film pixels are all three colors at once, not one color to a pixel. Except
for Foveon, silicon imager pixels are a single color, and half the pixels are
green, a quarter red, and a quarter blue. The green pixels define the
effective spatial resolution.
So, the 35mm film frame is equivalent to a 48,000,000 marketing pixel imager.
Some months ago I posted some extensive analyses of such issues as marketing
pixels.
>I think the best 35mm full-frame image sensor currently available yields
>about 14,000,000 pixels, so there is a ways to go to get the equivalent image.
I've heard that number too, for handheld digital cameras. There are
specialized (studio) cameras that vastly exceed this. But it may not matter,
as we are seeing many reports that 6 mpix is enough for most applications, and
people seem to like the look of the better digital photos.
Joe Gwinn
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|