P3D Re: Grain of Truth

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

John R wrote:
> >From: "Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> >From: Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> >>There's some truth in what you say, but digital cameras have been
> >>talked about quite a lot (and they have no film).
> 
> >Sure, they've often been discussed in the context of "Gee, I wish
> >digital cameras had a resolution approaching 1/10th that of film at less
> >than 5x the price."
> 
> Of course, digital cameras now come in a wide range of resolutions and
> prices, from the million-plus pixel (but *very* expensive) range to
> "a few hundred dollars" but much lower resolution.
> 
> Why do you think that 1/10 the resolution of film is a particular point
> to aim for? Would that be particularly good for some specific application?
> 

I think you might have missed some of the sarcasm in that statement.
I believe the point is that digital cameras costing 5 times as much as
the equivalent film camera do not have 1/10 the resolution of film.

There are some digital camera backs for large format cameras that
approach film quality (for catalog applications, not fine art), but
they can easily cost $30,000, are required to be tied to a computer,
are for still lifes (the camera back is basically a flatbed scanner
that moves across the film plane, often once for each color (rgb, or
cymk)), and are impractical for use outside the studio.

I haven't seen any digital camera in a 35mm format that comes close to
film.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Humans explore the Universe with five
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              |   senses and call the adventure science."
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds/ | - Edwin P. Hubble


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