That's true. It was sized down for printing. He should have printed it
at 300 or 360. But the web images would have been resized anyway, and
that's all we're seeing here. I'm sure he did something wrong, but I'm
betting it was lousy scans. The difference is too big for any other
explanation. But I do think it demonstrates that 12 megapixel digital
from a full frame sensor is capable of quality that can compete with
medium format. Many pros have staked their careers on that and have
proven it to be the case. Clint Clemens is a good example. (I mentioned
this in a previous message, but it never showed up.) He's a 30K/day
commercial shooter with fine-art credentials. He works exclusively with
the Canon full frame dslr in the studio and on location, and is booked
solid.
Paul
On May 6, 2006, at 3:16 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
On May 5, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
The author of the test didn't say that. In fact, he scanned the 6x6
at a fairly high resolution.
He said he sized both files to make a 240 dpi 20x30. 240 dpi at 20x30
from 6x6 is not all that high -- that scanner is capable of much more.
Therefore, the scan was sized down.
-Aaron
