RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
I would highly recommend a visit to: http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm if you are interested in questions like 'How many Mp do I need to get to x quality..?' Mr Clark has excellent samples and simulations up to 194 Mp (!) equivalents, and some quite detailed information. As for me, I'm quite surprised at the image quality obtainable from, say, a 3.3 Mp camera if there is so much interpolation going on. Other links on this topic would be appreciated.. mark t Julian said: > > Austin - is this true? Can you show documentation to > > demonstrate? - bec if > > it is true then I am very surprised and have been very badly mislead. > > > > Julian > > > > At 10:42 30/10/01, Austin wrote: > > >Note, when a digital camera claims 6M pixels...that's in fact a flat out > > >lie. It is REALLY 1.5M pixels, with four sensors per pixel...a pixel IS > > >made up of all three RGB components, so it is really misleading > > to make the > > >claims they do. They would be more honest to call it a 6M SENSOR array. > > >How they get 6M pixel OUTPUT is interpolation... This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au
RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
> As for me, I'm quite surprised at the image quality obtainable > from, say, a 3.3 Mp camera if there is so much interpolation going on. I agree...but what you are seeing, though it looks really good, isn't really all in the original image. These cameras do maintain edge detail very well, but lack in texture detail from my experience.
RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and very interesting reading, but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens to judge the quality of 35mm vs 5x4" (among other things) with this is plainly ridiculous I'm not trying to be a snob here, but really, you gotta get hold of a good pro 35mm camera before doing such tests, paul http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
I do agree with regard to the comparison with the 4x5", yet the fact that the lens is not the best available gives even more emphasis to the visible difference between scans at various dpi. After all, had these tests been made with a 3.000$ Leica lens, a lot of people would be left wondering whether the results would apply also to their lenses. Alessandro Pardi > -Original Message- > From: Paul Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: martedì 30 ottobre 2001 21.06 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI > > > well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and > very interesting > reading, > but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a > Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens > to judge the quality of 35mm vs 5x4" (among other things) with this is > plainly ridiculous > I'm not trying to be a snob here, but really, you gotta get > hold of a good > pro 35mm camera before doing such tests, > > paul > > http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm >
RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
Paul, I understand your frustration from his test setup but camera body wouldn't mind a lot. You obviously meant lens not to be adequate for such kind of comparisons, right ? Though not being Canon user, I still think that Elan would suit the test but the equipped with pro-quality optics. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Graham Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and very interesting reading, but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens to judge the quality of 35mm vs 5x4" (among other things) with this is plainly ridiculous I'm not trying to be a snob here, but really, you gotta get hold of a good pro 35mm camera before doing such tests, paul http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
Re: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
The Canon Elan is an excellent camera (I have one) and everyone knows that it's the quality of the lens not the camera that you need. Denise - Original Message - From: Paul Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:06 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI > well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and very interesting > reading, > but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a > Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens > to judge the quality of 35mm vs 5x4" (among other things) with this is > plainly ridiculous > I'm not trying to be a snob here, but really, you gotta get hold of a good > pro 35mm camera before doing such tests, > > paul > > http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm >
Re: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
In this context, you are right on Denise. Regards, Ron - Original Message - From: "Denise E. Kissinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 7:03 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI > The Canon Elan is an excellent camera (I have one) and everyone knows that > it's the quality of the lens not the camera that you need. > > Denise > > > - Original Message - > From: Paul Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 2:06 PM > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI > > > > well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and very > interesting > > reading, > > but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a > > Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens > > to judge the quality of 35mm vs 5x4" (among other things) with this is > > plainly ridiculous > > I'm not trying to be a snob here, but really, you gotta get hold of a good > > pro 35mm camera before doing such tests, > > > > paul > > > > http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm > > >
