From: "David Dyer-Bennet" : karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: : > The 35mm shooters have definately been tempted to digital for the very : > reason 35mm existed in the first place - convenience, but there was always : > a gap between convenience and quality.. that gaps just getting a bit wider : > ;-) : : Nope, narrower. That's why it's so exciting! 4000 dpi scan of 4x5 offers a 16000x20000 pixel image, that's, 320Mp 8x10 is 1.2Tp 4x5 scanning backs take around 30 minutes to grab a shot. the ccd's of most cameras only have sensors covering 25-50% of the surface, the rest of the image is 'guessed' by the camera software colours too are guessed by the camera. What has happened with UV and IR photography in the digital world? not necessarily for pictorial use but for tech and forensic? Photography isn't just limited to the pictorial world. Geologists, medical photographers and other tech photographers are finding it hard to extract valid information about what colours are actually recorded digitally. the results depend on the camera and the monitor or printer used at the time the image was stored and again when viewed. how valid, how reliable can this be? colours are guessed quite well now, but where are the 3 sensor cameras for us still photogaphers? thats where the real quality lies, that's what the cine camera market get, yet the still cameras are stuck with one sensor. more and more variables are being introduced into a discipline that always sought to limit the number of variables to maintain consistency. just another karl-rant, but I use both digi and film, one for convenience, one for reliability and quality. k
