I suggest you rent/buy a 4x5 camera and scan those negatives and make 24"x36" print from true 100MP files and maybe your definition of "stunning" will change. Do you really think that at 24x36" print size there is no room for vast improvement over a 6MP APS captured image? JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Cameron Hood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:06 PM To: Pentax Pentax Subject: > Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 04:28:44 -0700 > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Why full frame? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Hello Kevin ... > > We must have very different standards or you must be performing some > digital magic. I've seen a few 16" x 20" prints made from an istD, > and they looked very soft. I'd also seen the same print in a smaller > size (10x13 or so?) which looked quite good - sharp and detailed - so > I know the original quality was fine. In RAW format, I have made stunning quality 24"x36" prints, with no grain or artifacts. Even the on-board Photoshop logarithm, you can increase the file size quite substantially, although there are after market plug-ins that do a better job. With the right plug-in, you can rez up significantly further. Thanks, Cameron
