The convention was that a 6MP camera would equal 35mm film. If that's the case, let's double that (or close to it) and say that an 11MP camera (currently available in the form of the C*n*n 1Ds) actually equals 35mm film. Seeing as how the film area of a 6x7 image is 3892 mm square (56 x 69.5mm) it's 4.5x larger than 35mm (24 x 36mm = 864 mm square).
Therefore even if 11MP is equal to one frame of 35mm film that would suggest that 49.5MP would equal one frame of 6x7 film. Dave -----Original Message----- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 8:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Digital equiv. of a 67 Negative 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 >
