P3D Re: Grain of Truth

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

>  Kodak claims
> that the scanning for a Photo CD is at about the limits of film
> resolution.  The Photo CD 16Base is approximately 2200dpi and the
> 64Base (Pro Photo CD) is approximately 4400dpi (both based on 35mm
> film examples on the Kocak web page).  In order for a digital camera
> to be better than 110 film it would have to have more than 1700x1700
> pixels (on a 10x10mm CCD chip) to equal a Pro Photo CD of the same
> image taken with 110 film.  Of course you can't get a Pro Photo CD
> made from 110 film.

I would assume that Kodak if said "at about the limits of film
resolution" that this would indicate the best that the best
film can do.  Do all films have the same resolution (so that
using these numbers would be reasonable for all films)?

> > P.P.S. - The Kodak 120 and 210 sell new for about $600-700 now (see in
> >          local Camera World of Oregon newspaper ad).  How would those
> >          compare image quality wise with that 110 camera above?  I'd
> >          expect those be be under $500 around Christmas time.
> > 
> 
> It's been a long time since I've seen or used a 110 camera.  Most of
> them were probably junk.  Certainly all the ones I owned.  My

Well, kinda a point I was making.  People presumably actually
used that "junk".  I've seen pic's (from 126 cameras too) that
were fuzzballs, and were loved.  World of film-based cameras isn't
all based upon the very best film can record.

A question that may be a little more practical is "what resolution
is needed for a digital camera where the CCD (or equivalent) isn't 
the weak link"?  A lot of cameras, particularly at the low end,
have lens systems that may not be up to the resolution of the film
inside.  The 126 Instamatic fuzzball photos were probably cheap
lens limited.

So, keeping in mind the trashing that modern consumer zoom lenses
have gotten lately, what CCD resolution is needed to be in the ballpark
of cheap to middle-priced zoom lenses?

To go one step further, what resolution *typically* (not creating art
for a ten foot by ten foot mural at the Museum) is *needed* for a
snapshot?  One that'll be printed 3.5" x 5" ?

> Digital cameras are a neat idea, but they are not currently cost
> effective, and their image quality still has a long way to go.  For

For a lot of purposes, that's definitely true, "fer sure".  But I'm not
totally convinced.  The main competitor for digital camera usage
isn't "film" based cameras, but Polaroid ones.  Digital cameras are
"instant" cameras in that you can review what you took on the spot
and take another if it isn't "okay".  This is more the polaroid model
of photography.  So if one were to price-out the lifetime cost of
a digital camera and it's consumables, how would that stack up against
a Polaroid camera and the cost of its consumables (making some assumption
of the number of shots that were retaken due to not liking the first
try).  Digital camera might not do that bad!

> example, for a couple of hundred dollars you can buy a 4x5 pinhole
> camera, 4x5 film holder, and an Artec Scanrom 4e scanner (a 400dpi
> film and print scanner available for $100 mailorder) and get images of
> 2000x1600 pixels.  If you build the camera it'll cost less, and if you

True, but there also is a runtime cost of film and processing therof.
So over a 1,000 image lifetime, which costed more? Especially with 
4x5 film?

I still don't think Digital cameras are "ripe for the picking" (as a 
new toy anyway) quite yet, but the more I watch I don't think it
too far off (for general "aunt martha" snapshot and web-publication use).

Mike K.

P.S. - When talking to my very non-photo-buff wife, she really likes the
       idea of being able to review the photo taken "immediately".  Particularly
       when taking trip snapshots.


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