[photo-3d] Re: I still say it won't [digital camera resolution]

["Chuck Holzner" <cfholzner@xxxxxxxx>]

John R wrote---> I've seen an experimental imager (an array, not a 
scanned device)
> at 60+ megapixels.
> 
> Is it realistic to consider modern 35mm film cameras (including
> the optics) as providing 35 megapixel resolution?

It is pushing it.  I figured on 100 LPMM on the film.  Some films 
claim to do this.  That is 3600 lines Horzintal and 2400 lines 
vertical.  You need at least two pixels for each line, one for the 
line and one for the space between the lines.  That means that you 
need 7200 pixels by 4800 pixels.  That equals 34,560,000 pixels or 
rounded to 35 megapixels.
> 
> I assume the "100 LPMM" refers to information recorded on a 
negative.

Yes  or positive.  Lines Per MM.

> Does the 2-step processing of slide film have any effect on 
resolution?

I am sure you can mess it up.
> 
> What is the effective resolution of 3.5" or 4" prints made by a 1-
hour
> processor from 35mm color negatives?

I really don't know but they can't improve it beyound what is on the 
negative.  I gave up on prints.
> 
> For a traditional stereo slide system (camera lens plus slide film 
plus
> viewer optics, or camera lens plus slide film plus projector optics 
plus
> screen characteristics), what would be a realistic estimate of the 
resolution?

I have been trying to get as much resolution out of slide film in my 
35 MM stereo cameras as I can and have yet to make the 100 LPMM.  ( I 
don't have a Realist Custom.) Maybe 60 LPMM and you can't get that 
through the DOF range.  Velvia has been best for me, now I am trying 
Pro 100 F.  I can't get my projector to do anywhere near what my 
Kodaslide II viewer will do.  
> 
> 
Chuck H