slides vs prints dilemma

[Scubatooth]

ok so its possible but those arent lenses that the average person or even pro is going to get , unless that have money to burn, so

the realist calc isthe 100-150 number and at 150 thats 19mp and at 100 is 8.6 mp which there cameras right at that or higher.

 

[-hh]

Scubatooth once bubbled...
ok so its possible but those arent lenses that the average person or even pro is going to get , unless that have money to burn, so

the realist calc isthe 100-150 number and at 150 thats 19mp and at 100 is 8.6 mp which there cameras right at that or higher.

Yes, although that's 8.6-19 MP before considering color bit depth, is it not?


-hh

 

[TheAvatar]

lpmm->MP is *not* a good conversion.

You are going to have to look damned hard for a lens that will do over 120lpmm at anything but it's optimum aperture (Waiting for a Leicasnob to jump in... oh wait... no Leica housings! BWAHAHHAHAHAH!).

Both digital and film are limited by their lenses.

The lens is only one factor.

With direct digital, you must consider the lens, the sensor, the image processing, the compresion, and the output device (printer and printer driver/vidcard), and the output medium (paper/CRT/LCD).

With film you must consider the lens, the film, the processing, the output device (slide projection lens, enlarger lens) and the output device (paper/projection screen)

Every step decreases the quality to an extent.

When you scan film or run it through a lightjet/frontier type machine, then you run into more variables.

The highest resolving film can *maybe* do 250lpmm (techpan) but nobody uses that underwater and if they did, they couldn't get that resolution. Further, I think that the film will not do standard photography at that resolution. You will have a tough time finding film that will do more that 80 or 100lpmm. Usually less.