Bob, I look at pixels more as grain in film. All else being equal, a 50 Velvia 120/35 image will yield greater resolution than the same shot using 200 Gold. Regardless of format, I assume there would be no limit to the resolution gains to be realized by using finer grain film. Apparently I can't apply this standard to pixels. Nor can the magazine writer.(?) I'm wondering at what point does a noise producing higher pixel count sensor lose its advantage over another sensor of the same size, but with fewer pixels.
Jack --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understood the point of your (very reasonable) > question, so why be picky? > Truth is, I didn't even notice it and further, I > screw up all the time > myself. > > Whatever can be done at one size can be done at most > any size. The cost is > chip yield. The fact that some idiot in a magazine > says that an APS sensor > would contain more tightly packed pixels than would > a 24x36 and so 24x36 is > unnecessary, doesn't mean that it must be that way. > If what the writer said > is true, then there's no point to medium format > digital cameras! Think about > it. > > Regards, > Bob... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll > become happy; > if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. > - Socrates > > > From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Bob, > > Thanks for your response and for ignoring my > misuse of > > the word "throws". SHB: "Throes". > > Didn't I see something in a photo magazine about > the > > fact that an APS sensor would contain more tightly > > packed pixels than would a 24x36? Thus, according > to > > the writer, assuming the same pixel count, the > smaller > > sensor would capture and reveal more detail. > > Why do I doubt the assumption? > > > > Jack > > > > --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> There will always be a niche market for film, > even > >> 35mm. Digital will > >> supplant it for most real applications, most > >> importantly in the consumer > >> market where the dollars, euros, pounds, yen, > etc. > >> are, but film still > >> offers some image advantages (or at least claimed > >> advantages), and > >> aficionados will still provide some market, > enough > >> for perhaps two or so > >> small outfits to produce it. The intelligence > >> agencies still use it for best > >> detail and (what's the word?) acuity and will > >> continue to use it for non > >> real time airborne reconnaissance, so someone > will > >> continue making that. > >> Slitting it to 35mm and perforating it is a > small > >> thing, and it can then be > >> sold to those few consumers who still want it. > >> Astronomers will still demand > >> it for some applications, though the format will > be > >> larger, still, it starts > >> out as rolls that can be slit. Why 35mm? Well, in > my > >> opinion it provides the > >> best compromise between versatility (as a > function > >> of size) and quality (as > >> a function of image area). FYI, while I'm sure > that > >> many will not agree, > >> this is the same reason I would prefer a 24x36mm > >> sensor for a 35mm sized > >> camera. As it is with film, so it is with sensors > - > >> the larger the format, > >> the greater quality potential. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Bob... > >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, > you'll > >> become happy; > >> if you get a bad one, you'll become a > philosopher. > >> - Socrates > >> > >> > >> From: "Jack Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> > >> > How much longer will starving film cameras > demand > >> 35mm > >> > color pos/neg films be produced? What level of > >> > production and availability would qualify as > "in > >> > production"? > >> > What's the likelihood of film's resuscitation > >> through > >> > some manner of structural breakthrough? > >> > Un-answerable, but care to muse? > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________ > > Yahoo! Mail for Mobile > > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your > mobile phone. > > http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
