These arguments have been used by anti-digital hysterics for years to
"prove" film is superior to digital. They are based on the old "look
at my clever arguments and ignore your lying eyes" fallacy.
I am unaware of any camera maker that claims you can make 16X20
prints. I shocked at the small size of the recommended largest print
by Nikon when I bought my first Coolpix and it was good enough for me
to make the decision to more than dabble in digital. The manual for
my D200 does not even bother to talk about print size. It is
reviewers and users that say that because they are using their eyes.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Nov 15, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Ali Shah wrote:
> Notice that as the print size doubles, the megapixels
> required increases geometrically. You can make nice 8"
> x 10" prints with a 6 or 8 megapixel camera, but to
> make a true photo quality 16" x 20" print, you need
> between 24 and 30 megapixels. Don't be fooled by
> manufacturers' claims that say you can make 16" x 20"
> prints from an 8 megapixel camera. While you certainly
> can make a print that size, it will not be true photo
> quality.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|