P3D Re: The future (digital vs. film)

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Kersenbrock wrote:
> The Nikon D1 isn't one of those "converted" cameras.  It's 
> a new (Digital) camera "from scratch" that takes Nikon F
> lenses and can take full-resolution (2.7 Megapixels) pictures
> at 5 frames per second.  It's also tremendously cheaper than
> those converted F5's.
> 

It's good to see they are starting to make serious digital cameras.
I'm sorry I missed the recent D1 rollout event at Calumet.  I like the
fact that it has multiple uncompress image formats, and can do 12 bit
AD conversion, although without sensor cooling you won't really get a
full 12 bits on long (~1 second and longer) exposures.

I do notice that the Nikon USA marketing department has been pumping
up the numbers.  At the stated image resolution of 2000x1312 the
camera is only 2.5 megapixel (a megapixel is 1024^2 = 1,048,576
pixels).  Even using 1 megapixel = 1,000,000 pixels the camera is only
2.6 megapixel.

Given that a PhotoCD scan produces a 2048x3072 (6 megapixel) and a Pro
PhotoCD scan produces a 4096x6144 (24 Megapixel) image from 35mm film,
I don't see how the D1 (or any of the other cameras in its class) can
claim to have the full resolution of 35mm film.

The B&H price on the D1 body is $5000.  You can get a pretty nice 8x10
outfit (or a very nice 4x5) for that price and still have money left
over for some film, processing and a few drum scans.  Or you could get
a nice 35mm camera and the really nice Nikon LS-2000 film scanner.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"