LOL!
Norm
William Robb wrote:
JC, you are confusing detail with sharpness.
The istD images are sharper than 120 format film wet prints, minus
about 75% of the fine detail.
Yes, you're right. If I convert to 24 bit, the images that come off my
Epson 2200 are very nice. I just used the 48 bit example to point out
what was possible. I'm not sure I could make a noticeably better print
by starting with the 48 bit file.
Paul
On Aug 20, 2004, at 8:21 PM, William Robb wro
On Aug 20, 2004, at 6:56 PM, David Madsen wrote:
6MP is sufficient for very sharp, beautiful A3 prints, which is really
all I'll ever need.
6 MP is sufficient for very sharp, beauiful Super B prints at 12 x 18.
A PhotoShop CS RAW conversion of an *istD file can yield a 144 megabyte
48 bit file.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
-Original Message-
From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 10:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Almost digitally enabled - again
Thanks! And MP's isn't evertything. In fact a lot of ot
On 20/8/04, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, offered:
>After having sold my much loved SONY DSC F717 (too slow AF and too much
>shutter lag) last month, I have really missed using a nice, digital camera.
>So, yesterday I finally paid for brand new Pentax *ist D.
>I found a shop in Berlin, selling them
5 matches
Mail list logo
