Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 4/28/06 5:28:30 PM, a_pettit_jr@... writes:


> The question IS : I have a 6x7 film camera. If I purchase a refurb'd
> scanner I can create 142 Mpix files.... Is this really 24 times better
> than a 6 Mpix digital camera ?
> 
> Whats the generally accepted rule to equate analog (film) scans to full
> digital camera images ?
> 
There is no rule, as there is more or less usable data in a given digital 
photo or film scan, depending on the content, lenses, ISO, filmstock and many 
other factors. But in general, a digital photo has more meaningful data per pixel 
than a scan. High rez scans from small film are all about one level or 
another of grain definition... and while there can be ISO noise in a high rez 
digital photo, there is significantly more info per pixel, especially when shot with 
high end cameras, high end lenses, and some user expertise.

If you shoot large enough film you have more data because of the larger film 
size in relation to grain size... so that 4x5 and 8x10 scans can be done at 
levels that don't have much to do with film grain (unless you are blowing them 
up to huge sizes). Here you can capture more data that a 16.7 megapixel SLR 
image. Exactly where the changeover occurs (of more data in scanned film versus 
more in digital capture) is an open question. Studio backs move the tradeoff 
point even higher, but you apparently are not making that comparison, though it 
might be the more obvious one...

The general statement is that digal SLRs have outstripped 35mm, and are very 
competitive with medium format, for actual detail resolution; but the issue 
can be argued endlessly, based on a wide array of factors.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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