If that's only 13% of the potential quality I am very, very impressed! Don
> -----Original Message----- > From: John C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 4:28 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: LF "Quality" posted! , WAS: 35 vs digi - Some points to ponder. > > > I know I just said it is impossible to display > a LF image on a PC screen but here is a sample 4X5 negative > reduced to 12 Mpixels and jpegged down to about 2.5 Mbytes. > > The original is around 90 Mpixels and 270 Mbytes > so it is a lot better but this still gives you > some idea of the details you get by getting away > from small and medium format. > > Be sure to view it 1:1 ( you will have to scroll around > to view it). Newer browsers will automatically try > to reduce it to fit screen but that defeats the > whole purpose ( but it does demonstrate how > screen resolutions are crap!) > > http://www.jcoconnell.com/temp/barge12mp.jpg > > Warning: it is about 2.5 Mbytes file size. > Might take a while on a 56K internet connection. > > Pentax doesn't make LF lenses, this was with a > nice 120mm F8 Nikkor-SW I have on Portra 160NC > film. > JCO >
