Alan Browne wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:38:30 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

: Film shooters are just as welcome to participate.
: : See rule 1 b) para 2.

I noticed that, and it puzzled me. How does the inclusion of film
contribute
in any way to answering the question that motivated the exercise?
Which, I
believe, was "Do you need more than 12 megapixels in a full-frame
digital
sensor?"

An indirect relationship to be sure, but if somebody submitted such the
comparison could be of interest. A 4000 dpi scan of a 35mm frame is
about 21.5 Mpix. So comparable in pixel count.

Comparable in no of pixels, but not in quality - I've never seen a 4k
scan showing any better pixel-level quality than about an 8Mp dslr
equivalent (given nyquist/aliasing, etc).

Surely you would need the proverbial (and rarely seen) *good* drum
scan (and probably only from K25/Velvia/b&w) when you are getting into
this territory..?

Regardless, good to document. It really does depend on the quality of
the image taken to get the best possible scan.

I was tempted to buy the wet kit for my 9000ED which reduces grain noise
and improves contrast (like a drum scan), but at $500 plus consumables
it was getting a bit insane.


I can understand that.. I would have to admit that I used to do a lot
of K25 work, but.. (blush) there's probably only ten or so of them that
might justify a drum scan.. For the rest, 2.7/4K suffices. (O:

And none of those few good'uns are of a newspaper, so I won't be
contributing, sorry. But I shall watch with interest - I hope you get a
few bites.

I wonder if Rafe Bustin/Jim Davis are still around - remember this?
http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

I was a bit unimpressed by most of the drum scans on that page, however
- it's a black art and very few folk seem to know how to do it well (or
maybe the source images/films just aren't up to it).