Moose has the correct answer. The scanner will produce an image size
commensurate with the stated scanning resolution. Taking Moose's
example of scanning 35mm film at 4000 dpi you'll get an image of about
5600 x 3700 pixels. However, the big mystery is whether each of those
pixels actually resolves some detail different from its neighbors.
Resolution in film cannot be more than the size of its individual film
grains. Consider a case where the scanner is creating supposedly high
resolution pixels but where three of those pixels are all seeing a
different part of the same film grain. No matter the scanning
resolution the maximum possible real resolution may be considerably
less. Resolution for a film camera will depend on the film itself along
with all the other considerations that tend to limit it.
Likewise, the image dimensions from a digital sensor can't be more than
the number of pixels on the sensor. In the case of the Canon 5D with
3912 pixels in the vertical dimension there can't be more pixels than
that in the vertical dimension of the image. The maximum theoretical
resolution in lines would be 3912 / 2 = 1956 since it takes a minimum of
2 pixels of different color or brightness to start forming a line.
But that's the max theoretical from the sensor. If the lens is not
resolving that level of detail or there is motion blur then the maximum
will not be reached.
Chuck Norcutt
On 11/3/2014 12:23 AM, Moose wrote:
This says nothing about actual resolution of detail. Scanning and direct
digital capture are so very different that comparing raw pixel counts
isn't meaningful. I shot a LOT of images with the FF Canon 5D, 4368 x
3912, and scanned many frames of 35 mm film at 4000 dpi, about 5600 x
3700. The 5D resolved a lot more fine detail.
Mega Numbers Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|