Re: [photo-3d] Camera Coupling - Digital

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Eric Miner wrote:
> Could someopne post the date of publication for that Kodak
> statement.  Form what I'm currently reading pro-digital magazines
> there are now a few manufacturers who have CCDs surpassing the
> resolution of film.  Granted, they are currently expensive. But,
> then again two years ago a 2 megapixal CCD was expensive. Olympus
> now has a 4 megapixal SLR on the market at a very competitive
> price. And, as we know these prices fall all the time.
> 

I don't know the date of the Kodak item.  I do know that at the time
of it's introduction Photo-CD was considered by Kodak to get just
about all the useful information from a 35mm 8p frame.  Check the
Photo-CD information at Kodak's site to find the resolutions involved.
Both film and digital have improved since then.

I've grown very wary of what just about any magazine says about a
topic they advocate.  Statements from the various photo magazines
(film and digital) should especially be looked at carefully.

The scanning backs for 4x5 cameras can currently just about match 4x5
film.  These backs are in the $15000 and up category.  That doesn't
include the cost of the computer the back is tethered to, or any of
the image processing software (besides the basic stuff that drives the
camera).  The prices of these backs is so high that one of the
manufacturers is currently giving away brand new Mac G4 boxes with the
purchase of a MF camera back (which does not beat film).

> As for current consumer resolutions. I have a great Epson printer
> and pairs printed at card size are on a par with chemical prints of
> the same size. In fact my 8x10s are very impressive too. Now, I've
> never seen digital images transferred to transparency so I can't
> comment. But I suspect the quality is better then we'd expect. Keep
> in mind that about 30% (and growing) of all commercial images you
> see are digital. There's some great high quality work out
> there. And, some of it's being done on consumer equipment.
> 

By my conservative calculations you need about a 6.8 megapixel (8in. *
300ppi * 10in. * 300dpi / 1048576pixels per megapixel =
6.866megapixel) camera to get a really good 8x10 print.  To go larger
than that you'll need a much higher resolution camera sensor (e.g., an
11x14 needs about twice the resolution).  This isn't "examine the
print with a loupe" resolution, this is "hold the 8x10 at arm's
length" resolution.  None of the consumer digicams have this
resolution, and very few of the 35mm camera based professional cameras
do either.  The larger cameras have this resolution but at a high
cost.

That doesn't mean that all printed images need to be razor sharp, but
if you're going to compare digital to film (which may not be a valid
comparison anyway if you consider digital a different medium the way
oil painting is also a different medium) you have to realize that for
now, and the for seeable future, even the point and shoot 35mm film
cameras are capable of higher than digital resolution.

See above for the costs of the commercial gear.  By the way, a reason
that commercial photography is going digital is that the vast majority
of it wides up being offset printed at sizes smaller than 8x10 (think
of all those mail order catalogs).  They don't really need high
quality.

> Was it Kodak who said that a 35mm motion picture image is less than
> 50% of a still? I've seen 35mm motion picture film and it looked
> larger than that to me.
> 

Remember that motion picture film runs through the camera vertically,
there is more than one 35mm movie film format, and they need to to
have room for the sound track.  I'm sure John Rupkalvis, or others on
this list, can cite the actual dimensions of a 35mm movie frame.

-- 
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"

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/