----- Original Message ----- From: "David Dyer-Bennet" : Qkano <wildimages@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: : : > >stuff that contributed nothing to the image. It was suggested that a 4000 : > >ppi scanner offered no benefit above a 1200 ppi scanner for high quality : > >35mm film.. : > : > Bull...! obviously :) : And, in general, Roger's article on film vs. digital at : <http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html> : is worth looking at. : : The other point is that simple resolution questions can be fairly : easily settled by photographing a resolution test chart. This can : provide a useful check on theoretical calculations :-). Those resolving power figures I stated are a serious oversimplification of the many factors that contribute to resolution, and can NOT give a definitive guide to resolving power, however treated as an abstract comparison between the digital sensor and film I'm guessing* they give a pretty good guide to the actualities behind the system. I guess they could be combined and treated as ratios. (* I am guessing as I know the numbers can't be wrong, yet they are clearly not the whole truth) Once sharpening algorithms and the like are introduced into the digital side by the camera/software package everything changes as far as the image goes, however the true real limits remain fixed. Personally, I feel shooting res test charts is a bad habit that should be discouraged fairly early in a photographers career ! ;) k
