Well, color negative film is pretty much limited to about 50lpm max ,so they system resolution will be lower than that. But digital has a higher edge contrast (separation between colors or shades) that make digital prints appear sharper at first glance. Careful comparison tells a different story, at least to my old eyes. Also lpm and ppi are not even remotely the same thing, if they were a 35mm color negative would be limited to about 2mp, don't confuse them.
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arnold Stark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 8:36 AM Subject: Re: What is better? Digital Full Frame against 67 > I do not see, how a digital picture taken with a 14Mpixel sensor can > beat 35mm film at f=8, i.e. at a total resolution of lens and film of 70 > or more line PAIRS/mm > (values that one can easily produce with most Pentax lenses) > 36mm*140lines/mm = 5040 lines horizontally > 24mm*140lines/mm = 3360 lines vertically > 5040lines*3360lines = 169344400 "analogue pixels" (16.15 analogue > Megapixels) for EACH colour. > > Arnold > > J. C. O'Connell schrieb: > > >Based on the JPEG ( not even a tiff ) from kodaks > >14Mpixel SLR, it CERTAINLY beats even the best > >35mm film image, and to my eye, equals or even exceeds > >my best P67 images. > > > >Even if it just equals P67, that gives the 35mm DSLR > >a huge enuff advantage to be the winner. Why? > >Think about the variety, size, cost & speed of 35mm lenses. > > > >There are no medium format F1.4 lenses, 28-85 > >zoom equivilents, 17mm equivilents, 1000mm equivilents, > >etc. etc. etc. The size and weight of medium format > >lenses is a BIG (no pun) liability, let alone their > >cost. Once 35mm DSLRs equal medium format in quality, > >the WAR is over....And I think that time may have already > >arrived. > > > >JCO > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
