Subject: Mega Pixels versus small grain
Date: 2006-11-08 07:36:20
From: jamesbharp

>>in my opinion this represents a far greater advance in imaging
>>capabilities than the doubling and tripling of megapixel counts in
>>digital cameras these past few years.

>>Hmmm? Because of the above? ... Noise reduction in digital systems seems to me to be

as great an advance as MPix expansion.

My point is that those of us who shoot film (I also use a twin Sony V3 digital rig)
occasionally hear that even if MF slides have more detail than consumer digital rigs, digital
cameras are constantly improving and film based photography is a dead end. It's
exciting to have a significant advance in film technology at the same time that an MF
stereo camera with ultra sharp coated lenses has hit the market for well under $5,000.00.
This seems more promising to me than Sony going from 7 to 11 MegaPixels in their
consumer digital camera offerings.

I can't argue with you about the value of noise reduction in digital systems. My sense is
that high end digital imaging technology can now capture as much detail as a good
medium format camera. The challenge I perceive is coming up with a 3D digital viewing
system that can compare to two $40 loupes on a light box.

Jim Harp

Subject: Re: Mega Pixels versus small grain
Date: 2006-11-09 09:37:17
From: John Hart

--- In MF3D-group@yahoogroups.com, "jamesbharp" wrote:

No comment on MP vs small grain. That is ill-posed. The media are
so different it isn't worth beating on it (esp. in this group ;-).

> The challenge I perceive is coming up with a 3D digital viewing
> system that can compare to two $40 loupes on a light box.

Viewing systems are still the weak link in 3D. Different methods are
used and have varying degrees of effectiveness in different venues.
FWIW, the best personal viewing of digital output (whether direct or
scanned MF film, etc.) is obtained with:

1. Large (8.5x11 or greater) print pairs (best)
2. MF film recorder slide pairs
3. Dual monitors
4. 35mm film recorder (weakest)

IMO #1 is easily superior at this moment in time to all the others.
Eventually, perhaps as 200 ppi lcd panels grow beyond their current
3.5" size, #3 will win out (e.g. a 16" screen would be 3200 wide,
probably beyond the human eye's resolving power at a viewing ratio
typical of MF hand viewers). Not bargain basement though.

John