Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 5/20/2003 7:57:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> Fine grain film can resolve 80 lp/mm (or better - Panatomic-X could 
> easily do over 100 lp/mm).   So do the math.   It takes (a MINIMUM 
> of) two pixels to resolve a line-pair.  So a 36x36mm sensor such as 
> the type used in MF photography would need to have 160 elements/mm to 
> resolve 80 lp/mm.  That would be over 33 MP.   Sinar's best is 22 MP 
> and it's 36x49mm, which means it's even lower-res than what I used in 
> the above example.
> 
> So get over it: digital sensors are NOT as sharp as film.   Actually 
> digital sensors are even worse than the above math suggests because 
> of the need for bayesian reconstruction.   The color resolution is 
> even lower than the luminance resolution.

Rather than just theorize with math, how about you invest in a digital camera 
and see for yourself how, in terms of final image quality, it's the opposite 
of what you say. I used to think the same way until I tried it.

I just printed a 13x19 Piezo print from a Sigma XD-9 sensor in a $1,500 Sigma 
camera from a $250 macro lens that IN THE PRINT shows more micro detail than 
I could ever get from a 4x5 TriX optical print. Never liked the idea of 
scanning (slow, dusty, second or third generation data). But, hey whaterver 
works best for you is all that matters.

I have color 30x40's from a Kodak Pro Back that looked better than 4x5 neg 
optical prints, so it's good enough to hand on walls and get top dollar for. 
End of theory for me.

Claude


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]