I suspect the "generations" effect is why it takes less resolution in a DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at 16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally exceeds 30MPixels.
I saw a website that compared drum to a dedicated film scanner, with the claim that you really don't get the full stated resolution with a film scanner. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To put it simply, when you capture an image with a DSLR camera, you are in > effect directly scanning the image transmitted by your lens into digital > electronic form; you do not need to go through a second process in order to > convert the analog capture on film into an electronic digital capture. The > first generation capture equivalent for film is when you transmit the image > data from the lens to the film; scanning it into digital form later is a > second generation capture. > > We are not talking about sensor size which has more to do with multiplier > effects on the effective lens sizes of the lenses being used and possibly on > the resolutions that are possible. > > Hope this helps. > >> This whole thing about judging photographic quality by the equipment >> does >> seem to me like a snooty conservatism on the part of Getty > > Of course there can be some of this in play as well; but it probably has > more to do with Getty knowing the demands of their clients and wanting to > play it safe by insisting on equipment and processes that they are familiar > with and know will produce that quality rather than taking the risk of > having to spend time sorting through submissions which come from sources, > equipment, and processes that they are not familiar with and cannot be sure > are up to their needs. Sometimes better equipment does produce better and > more reliable results on a more consistent basis. Would you readily accept a > prescription from an unknown drugstore that bore an unfamiliar brand name on > it and was prescribed by a doctor who had a degree from a medical school > that you never heard of and whose license to practice medicine was of > uncertain origins? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berry Ives >> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:02 AM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography >> >> Laurie, >> >> What does it mean that: >> >> "The D200 and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture" >> >> The film sensor of the D200 is substantially smaller than a 35mm film >> image, >> so I guess that is not what it means. So what is the basis for saying >> this? >> >> This whole thing about judging photographic quality by the equipment >> does >> seem to me like a snooty conservatism on the part of Getty. They can >> do >> what they like, of course. >> >> Just a question, >> Berry >> >> >> On 7/1/07 7:00 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> The D200 >>> and D2X produce a 35mm equivalent first generation capture >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ----------------- >> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe >> filmscanners' >> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message >> title or body > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body