Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled
From: rdcb37 at dodo.com.au (Rick Dykstra)
Date: Mon Nov 22 16:15:09 2004
References: <BDC68D10.AC9E%mark@rabinergroup.com> <341A7A4E-3C2F-11D9-AE5E-00306599C552@earthlink.net> <20041122025039.5953.qmail@balhpl01.ncable.net.au>

Hi Alistair.  You've posed exactly the question I've asked of Leica, 
though no response yet.

The lab I use does high end scans (though not the highest - were not 
talking drum scans here) which are 6144 x 4096 pixels and around 75 to 
100 MB in size (depending on the variety of colours I suppose).  I get 
these printed to 20 x 30 inch.  The DMR sensor is 3872 x 2576.  So how 
can this sensor make images reproduced at 20 x 30 in of the same 
clarity as film scanned to 6144 x 4096?  And I could get these trannies 
drum scanned to even higher standards.

I'm not knocking the DMR - I want one or two - but will it be as good 
as my Velvia?  I can't see how.  Again, not necessarily a problem, I 
just need to know before I spend the money.  :-)  I've also heard it 
will be upgradeable and that's good.  Any comments on this?

Rick Dykstra, Australia


On 22/11/2004, at 1:50 PM, firkin wrote:

> Feli di Giorgio writes:
>> I would be very happy with a 10-12MP full frame camera.
>> Manageable file sizes, DOF of a 135, low noise at high ASA, due
>> to the large size of individual receptors. I really don't need 20MP
>> for what I do...
>
> The immediate question is what do you do that requires 10 to 12. I 
> mean this seriously, not as a jibe or insult. My mind tell me that 10 
> to 12 seems about right, because I suspect (never tried and therefore 
> don't know) that you could print 16 x 20 at about this level with 35mm 
> happiness. Barry Thornton claimed that only really "lucky" good 35mm 
> negs could produce "perfect" images larger than about 10 x 14 (I 
> think) I remember thinking "I've got larger ones" but then thinking 
> but they are not all "perfect", so he may be right.
> Like many, I suspect I've been too worried about making big 
> enlargements, when smaller well crafted images would be "better" and 
> store much more easily !!!!!
> This brings me back to my nagging question; will todays good film 
> scanners "match" a 10 mega pixel dedicated digital camera when you 
> view moderately large images side by side?
> Alastair Firkin @ work ;-)
> http://www.afirkin.com
> http://www.familyofman2.com 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com (Frank Dernie) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Reply from jonathan at openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from feli2 at earthlink.net (Feli di Giorgio) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from firkin at balhpl01.ncable.net.au (firkin) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)