Re: Digital vs scanning

[P3D Gregory J. Wageman <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>> Clearly you are hung up on digital, but I wouldn't dismiss scanning quite so
>> quickly. One day digital cameras might be the way to go, but in today's "real
>> world," a print from standard 35mm is INFINITELY superior to a digital master.
>All very true.  Unless I misunderstand the idea here, scanning would be
>far superior to any afforable digital camera.  The part about a scan
>being a "copy of the image" is true, but in this case, the copy is still
>way better than a digital snap.

Let's get a little more specific, shall we?  First, define "affordable
digital camera".  You're probably talking about the 640x480 resolution
junk that's sold for making GIF and JPG images for web pages.  This is
not worthy of discussion for any serious photographic purpose.

I don't understand why you think that a digital scan, using a scanner
with maybe two or three times that resolution, is "INFINITELY" superior.

If you are talking about a much higher-resolution scanner, then you are
comparing apples and oranges.

The Kodak DCS system that's now been mentioned twice has near-photographic
resolution, but it still isn't film.  A good chrome has a resolution of
about 150 line-pairs/mm.  The Kodak has 3060 pixels across the 34mm
imaging area, or about 90 pixels/mm., or about 1/3 to 1/2 the resolution of
film.  It's just a matter of time before the next order of magnitude
improvement, and then it *will* be just as good as film.


------------------------------