T3D Re: T3D Re: Digital resolution

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> Welllll -- isn't this begging the question? One of the prominent
> resolution-limiting factors in conventional photography is the image grain.
> Until digital can begin to show the grain of scanned conventional photos,
> it can't be said to have resolution as good as conventional, can it?

Isn't that the point when it's better than "conventional", rather than
being equal to?

> The best monitors and all the dye sub output I've seen (up to 24 bit

I agree about monitors!  They're usually ~100 dpi.  But then there are
some medical imaging monitors which I've not seen in person that I'd
imaging are quite a bit better than the monitors I've actually seen.
How good are those, anybody know?

> 300x600 dpi) don't even come close to giving "photo-quality" output, IMO.
> Now maybe an 8x10" dye-sub can begin to show the grain of really high-ISO
> 16mm or 110 originals, but not of medium-ISO 35mm, much less 6x7cm and up.

A High-ISO 110 original blown up to 8X10?  You mean the universal fuzzy
blob that represents *any* subject matter with that same camera?  :-) :-)

I won't say that I've seen dyesub better than the VERY BEST film can
possibly do, but some of the output of Tektronix dye-subs I have looked
at were VERY impressive.

Which dye-sub printer outputs did you see, and where did the photo
it printed come from?  A great print of a lousy digital image will
still look lousy (as it should if it works properly!).

Mike K.


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