P�l wrote: "No, but it can make 67 look better. Like better scanners and better printers. Digital capture at present match the resolution limit of paraphernalia like printers and scanners while film do not (it is beyond)."
I agree. I'm afraid that the manufacturers may not produce a better quality scanner in the near future. This may cut into the digital camera sales(???) When was the last film scanner upgrade by Nikon? The turn-over is not as high as with DSLR's. And yes, Reichman is limited by his equipment & it is not very scientific at ALL. I'd much rather see a SCIENTIFIC evaluation done by OBJECTIVE & qualified researchers. Like P�l mentioned earlier: if you compared a 8x10" 35mm print with a 6x7 8x10" print you may not see a difference. Therefore why go 6x7? But what if you go 30x40", then???? Peter --- P�l_Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike wrote: > > > The thing I don't understand is why, or how, > people can get so exercised > > over this. I mean, 6x7 hasn't changed, has it? It > looked good before, it > > looks good now, and nothing about the state of > digital development can or > > will make it look any worse, right > > > No, but it can make 67 look better. Like better > scanners and better printers. Digital capture at > present match the resolution limit of paraphernalia > like printers and scanners while film do not (it is > beyond). > > > P�l > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
