That's why I stated even at 2000ppi. Using fine grain slow speed films I dont get much grain at 2000ppi, especially with B&W film. JCO
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 8:11 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative > > > "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >At 4000ppi, I've calculated the > >P67 negative to be ~ 90 Mpixel. > >Even at 2000ppi, it's over 22Mpixel. > > > >How long before we get these kind of numbers > >out of a DSLR? > > You can't really compare digital vs. scanned film on a strict megapixel > basis because as you scan film at higher and higher resolutions > what you're > getting is more and more grain information and less and less image > information. A digitally-captured image of a lot fewer than 90 megapixels > will be better than a 90 megapixel image from scanned film. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com >
