I know..I know. I'm making no effort to compare different dimension sensors. Thanks for input.
Jack --- Bob Blakely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The point is... > > If the APS size sensor gives acceptable performance, > then a 24x36 mm sensor > designed to the same pixel density and pixel > performance IS better. At any > rate, the comment regarding medium format sensors is > still valid. Again, > 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, 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 > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
