30 Oct
2012
30 Oct
'12
7:12 a.m.
On 30 Oct 2012, at 0:21 , Paul Anderson <wackyvorlon at me.com> wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On 2012-10-29, at 12:04 PM, Diane Bruce <db at db.net> wrote:
Fine, here's another link:
<http://www.mindspring.com/~lorqvonray/Sticker-5mp-Velvia.html>
Point is, saying "35mm film == 24 megapixel" is stupid without reference to
frame size. The claim as stated earlier in this thread originated from the motion picture
business. So which format is "24 megapixel", then?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film#Common_formats>
Here's an idea: stop bringing resolution into these "film vs. digital"
discussions. There's tons of reasons to prefer (either) one over the other, all of
which are more interesting and valid than resolution for all but niche uses.
.tsooJ
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<o))>< <o))><
<o))><
<o))>< <o))><
<o))>< <o))><
\V/
_______|_______\|/_______V_\/vV_________\|/_____
--
Joost van de Griek
<http://www.jvdg.net/>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 08:36:41AM -0700, Zane H.
Healy wrote:
Wait... That Ken Rockwell article says *nothing* about film grain. I even searched it for
the word grain. How on earth can you write an article about the relative resolution of
film without a word regarding grain?! At 3:44 PM +0100 10/29/12, Joost van de Griek
wrote:
I'm glad you said it and not me. It needed saying. Here are some musings on this subject, in regards
to still
photography: <http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm>
Referencing Ken Rockwell is another good way to start a flame war.
It is disturbing how many people think he's a credible source.
Though sometimes he is the easiest way to get basic info.
Zane