Home Theater Forum - View Single Post

JohnRice · 09-12-2006, 01:39 PM

I think Aaron makes the best points so far. Others have talked about the cost of a camera and headed in the direction of the inconsistency of MP (in fact, particularly in P&S models, higher pixel count is often worse) and gone more into results. When I went into buying medium format (over 20 years ago) thhe Pentax 6x7 was not an option for me for one major reason. focal plane shutter. No way I am dragging around an RB, so it was SQ-A for me, because it made sense.

Talk about a MP story, I have one client who years ago had a stack of 4x5 work done. They had them all scanned at, get this, 1,600 x 2,000 pixel. Now, for those slow on math, that is a whopping 3.2 MP. BUT, the source was top notch and the scans are higher quality all around (aside from MP) than you can get with a digital camera. He had 20x24s made (using interpolation to avoid blocking) and the results are amazingly good. No, they aren't tack crisp, but they are display prints and are intended for viewing from a distance. I was amazed how they looked.

09-12-2006, 01:39 PM	#11 of 23
JohnRice *John Rice* Member Location: Colorado Join Date: Jun 2000 Local Time: 06:58 AM Local Date: 12-01-2008 Posts: 8,487	Re: The Digital Love/Hate Thread I think Aaron makes the best points so far. Others have talked about the cost of a camera and headed in the direction of the inconsistency of MP (in fact, particularly in P&S models, higher pixel count is often worse) and gone more into results. When I went into buying medium format (over 20 years ago) thhe Pentax 6x7 was not an option for me for one major reason. focal plane shutter. No way I am dragging around an RB, so it was SQ-A for me, because it made sense. Talk about a MP story, I have one client who years ago had a stack of 4x5 work done. They had them all scanned at, get this, 1,600 x 2,000 pixel. Now, for those slow on math, that is a whopping 3.2 MP. BUT, the source was top notch and the scans are higher quality all around (aside from MP) than you can get with a digital camera. He had 20x24s made (using interpolation to avoid blocking) and the results are amazingly good. No, they aren't tack crisp, but they are display prints and are intended for viewing from a distance. I was amazed how they looked. They flutter behind you, your possible pasts. Some bright-eyed and crazy, some frightened and lost.