Austin, Austin, you are not 100% correct. The posters I refer to were done by an old Kodak digital body that I believe had maybe 3-4 MPs. Sometimes math is not the solution. You see after you res up the image using some commrecial programs that are unavailable to you or I directly, even you could not tell the difference. Where you are correct is in the average person's use of a 4MP image file and trying to print it out on a Epson or HP inkjet. On that your math does work. As to the P& S statement I stand corrected as you noted Marc's comment. Bet you are a fan of that new show on TV titled "Numbers." :-) Peter K On 4/15/05, Austin Franklin <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Peter, >=20 > > I am referring to an SLR of even 4 MP. >=20 > Even a 4mp DSLR won't give you "equal" quality to decent 35mm and most > certainly not a decent MF film camera. There just isn't enough informati= on > there. Do the arithmetic. >=20 > > If the camera was specifically > > a P&S, that would change things a bit. But the original comment did > > not specify a P&S, just a digital image. >=20 > The original comment, from Marc, was specifically about P&S digicams, and= I > quote: >=20 > "On the other hand, I have a couple of inexpensive P&S digital cameras. > They can take 256 or so exposures on a single card, each of which will th= en > be able to be printed to at least 20" by 24" without any noticeable probl= em > with quality." >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Austin >=20 > > On 4/15/05, Austin Franklin <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Peter, > > >=3D20 > > > > I have seen many digital images. Done right, you could not tell the > > > > difference between a quality digital image at 11x14 or one from a f= ilm > > > > camera. > > >=3D20 > > > Absolutely, but not from a 4.1mp digital P&S. > > >=3D20 > > > Regards, > > >=3D20 > > > Austin > > >=3D20 > > >=3D20 > > > > > > --=3D20 > > Peter K > > =3DD3=3DBF=3DD5=3DAC > > > > >=20 >=20 --=20 Peter K =D3=BF=D5=AC