Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Feb 17, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't
go away when 35mm became popular. Digital is another format, not a
replacement for all possible uses of everything else.
Yes.
No.
Digital is not a format. Digital is a technology allowing a lot of
different formats, just like film.
I think we already have more digital formats available than film,
don't you think?
You can replace any film with the proper digital format. For that
reason, most pros sell their film equipment and buy digital stuff
capable to do the same job.
IMO, 6MP APS roughly equals 35mm film (better in some respects,
worse in others), 16MP FF roughly equals MF film (better in some
respects, worse in others). And I think I've been fair.
While I agree with you technically ... digital and film are capture
mediums, not definitions of format ... the contrapoint "YES .... NO"
was unnecessary and simply argumentative. ERN's meaning was clear.
6Mpixel does not equate to "APS". It is a resolution. 6Mpixel is
6Mpixel, regardless of the format of the sensor. Different sensors
have different qualities. Larger sensors have greater sensitivity
than smaller sensors at the same SNR. When holding SNR constant, they
are otherwise indistinguishable. Sensors with greater quantization
space (16 bit vs 12 bit vs 8bit) produce more tonal gradation. Larger
format sensor produce a different coupling of Field of View and Depth
of Field in relation to focal length, similar to film camera format
changes. Etc etc.
But, again, ERN's meaning was clear even if imprecisely stated, and I
agree with it.
Thanks, Godfrey.
For the record, then, my post should've read:
"But neither is 35mm, which is why medium- and large-format didn't go
away when 35mm became popular. Digital is another tool, not a
replacement for all possible uses of everything else."
ERN
