Chip Louie wrote: > > If what you are saying is true, then why do 200MB drum scans look better > than 50MB drum scans? Why is it easy to see such a large improvement in > image quality with a simple change to higher resolution film with better > contrast and finer grain?
The reason is that *every* step reduces contrast between line pair or between detailed edges. A 50MB scan may not reduce the resolution much, but a 200MB scan will reduce the resolution less...and yet, each of these will reduce quality compared to the film image. Even with a lousy lens, a change to better film will record more detail than the same lens with lousy film because the quality (contrast of edges) is falling at every stage. > > The only conclusion I can come to is that lenses are not the limiting factor > in image resolution, film is. There is no limiting factor...it is a progressive loss of quality in all stages, which, can be greater or lesser depending, usually, on the cost of the items used, but can never be as good as the previous stage (eg, light coming out the film side of a lens versus the contrast of the light going in the object side, etc, etc). Of course, we hope to minimize loss at all transitional stages. I believe there is a reading at www.photodo.com (or maybe somewhere else that I have forgotten) that lays these problems quite plain. Mike -- Michael Shupe M.J.Shupe Photography Michigan Tech University www.northernlightsgallery.com * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
