I agree with your suspicion. My Minolta, in raw pixels gets about 8mb from a 35mm frame. With the 4000dpi scanners, a raw pixel count of about 20mb is realized.
It does seem there is more than 6 megapixels of information in a 35mm film frame. It's the "standards" issue again... and what size the final output will be. For most people 6 mega-pixels may be good enough, but "good enough" and "as good" may be two different things, depending on the user's intentions. Tom C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Gittings" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:06 AM Subject: RE: DPI vs. PPI > I don't know either. If I thought that there was really only about 6 MP of > real info in a 35mm frame I might make the switch to digital sooner than I > expect to. But I'm not sure they are not fudging their opinions down so as > to sell large amounts of their higher end digital cameras. > Kent Gittings > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of aimcompute > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 12:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: DPI vs. PPI > > > That's interesting, but let me ask this. I'll do it rhethorical fashion. > > When I scan a 35mm slide with my 2438ppi scanner, what part of the 20+ > megabyte file would I choose as being inconsequential to the image? > > And now with the 4000ppi scanners it seems there is even more data to be > found in a 35mm frame. > > Tom C. > > Kent Kittings wrote: > > <snip> > > > By the way in the latest > > product news from Fuji they say that generally (without specifying the > film) > > a 35mm snapshot has about 6 MP of info that can be mined out of it with > even > > the best scanners. This is when comparing it to their 6900 digicam that > has > > a 6 MP interpolation mode. I know at some point a higher and higher dpi > film > > scanner will get no more real data out of a negative/slide but just > > interpolation of the areas between the grain. However I was under the > > impression the amount of data on a 35mm frame was higher. So either they > are > > fudging so as to place themselves correctly in the digicam world or they > are > > correct and maybe downplaying the actual data content of their own film to > > move towards a digital world. > > Kent Gittings > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > > > ********************************************************************** > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they > are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify > the system manager. > > This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by > MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. > > www.mimesweeper.com > ********************************************************************** > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
