> > "...The digital camera gives you only 6M*8bit/channel=6Mbytes..." > > 6Mpixels *8bits/channel *3channels = 144Mbytes. This assumes 3 > bytes/pixel > > it may be higher if bit deepth per channel is greater than 8. > > Bob Wright > > Er, no. That would be 144M BITS, not bytes, which is 24M Bytes... Sorry, typo...make that 18M Bytes...
- Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... RogerMillerPhoto
- Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wed... Larry Berman
- Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Karl Schulmeisters
- RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wed... Arthur Entlich
- RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Robert Meier
- RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wed... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Robert E. Wright
- Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wed... Robert Meier
- Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Robert E. Wright
- Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Robert Meier
- RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Robert Meier
- RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Robert Meier
- RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wed... Robert Meier
- Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Karl Schulmeisters
- RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wed... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras - wedding/... Soren Svensson (EUS)