Thus, one should reasonably assume 8000x10000 pixels as a "baseline" for professional-level 4x5.
200dpi scans are ridiculously low for such media and are hardly worth the effort.
Perhaps the "200" is a typo?
M
-----Original Message-----
From: James Schenken [mailto:jds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2008 02:55 PM
To: 'List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students'
Subject: Comparable Resolution was Re:Michael; Could you clarify the term "properly scanned" in this context? Dave mentioned scanning at 200 ppi. Thanks, James At 06:30 PM 12/6/2008 +0000, you wrote: >Deaer Dave, > >You can calculate all you want and even pixel peep, but in the end >most people will "see what they want to see and hear what they want >to hear" or in other words: people's opinions are highly subjective >in spite of promoting various scientific "proofs" to support their >subconscious bias. Or to put it more simple: take every bit advise >with a grain of salt. > >For the comparison you suggest, the anecdotal evidence is >overwhelming: a 4x5 neg, properly exposed and properly scanned and >properly printed will produce excellent 30"x40" prints. >The same cannot be said of a 12mp digital camera. > >So while I might agree that a 12mp camera and a 4x5 can produce >comparable-looking 16x20's, when it comes to much bigger prints, >film still has quite an edge. > >Michael > >P.S. Nyquist calculation suggests that the maximum system detail >extracted from a full-frame sensor can be no more than 16Mp -- so >what does that tell you about the new 24mp cameras being promoted today? James Schenken
