> Sigh. You didn't understand my point. Calling something a "4k standard" > when it's only ~2700ppi is not right in my book.
"4K" simply means 4000 (and 96) pixels across the 36mm film chip. Actually, 2889.9ppi. Well, when you can perceive no diff on film, what else is logical to believe except that somewhere close to this IS film rez translated to pixel density? What's higher rez output than film itself? > > I'd say that 11-12MP of true pixel info IS pretty > > much what (Ektachrome, > > at least) film can resolve. > I certainly disagree with that, and have easily proven differently. If you're talking as per digicams, as in your comments below, I agree. But only because digicams aren't cranking true and accurate pixels (yet). > > And, btw, 4K at the pixel dimensions stated above is over 11 > > million pixels. > > I think that 11MP is the "holy grail" of digicam sensors to > > "equal" 35mm film for most > > all intents and purposes. > > Yeah, but it isn't even close, and that's a whole other ball game. It > depends on the film, development, exposure etc. Film has FAR FAR more > usable information than 11M pixels. I can only speak of the films I have personally output and observed, those being: Tmax 100, Ektachrome 100+, and Vericolor III (now discontinued) and Portra NC. I can perceive no appreciable diff. I'm not saying there isn't some, only that 11-12MP is getting pretty close to 35mm rez for many, if not most, common films. > Also, digicams, at least the Bayer > pattern ones, aren't really real pixels, they are interpolated pixels. <etc> I have no expertise in digicam theory/tech. I totally agree that the pixels must be "real". I can only speak for what I've observed with film scans output back to film. I only have Nikon 2000 presently, which is not up to snuff, but again, the drum scans I've seen are close enough that the "4K" film recording rule of thumb seems reasonable. Again, don't get too hung up on the term, just refers to 4000 (and 96) pixels across the 36mm. It seems obvious to me that equal pixel densities from quality film scanners beats the crap out of digicam output at the present time. Comparing my 3MP toy digicam with even a 3MP scan from film shows the scan to be MUCH superior, pixel for pixel. > Personally, I > don't appreciate this inaccurate marketing information that these companies > have put out. The camera may put out N M pixel files, but the actual sensor > is NOT N M pixels, it's N M sensors, and a sensor element is NOT the same as > a picture element, as far as color goes (in Bayer pattern cameras that is). > It's misinformation. > Austin Well, again, that's going quite far afield from the contentions I've made. IF (guess I should say "when") digicams produce the same quality of pixels that film scanners are now doing, megapixel for megapixel, then I still think a 11-12 MP image is the "holy grail" to match mainstream 35mm film use. I'm quite impressed with the quick evolution in scanner tech, but still quite underwhelmed with the same in digicams. If I didn't have all my years of experience in film, maybe I wouldn't be. Mac ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
