[rollei_list] Re: Digital printing V. Analog
- From: Mark Rabiner <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 10:35:38 -0700
>
>> On 4/15/05, Austin Franklin <austin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>> =20
>>>> 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 film
>>>> camera.
>>> =20
>>> Absolutely, but not from a 4.1mp digital P&S.
>>> =20
>>> Regards,
>>> =20
>>> Austin
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>
>>
>> --=20
>> Peter K
>> =D3=BF=D5=AC
>>
>>
>
>
All this math it doesn't always jell with what you see when you look at the
images themselves.
What we think we need theoretically with megabytes and dots per inch and
what ends up being more that viable in an image on paper are offen ballgames
apart.
Hence inkjet taking over the universe as we know it.
Speaking of the universe as we know it.
Lets not forget the Hubble space craft telescope which redid astronomy
imaging as we know it was done with a CCD which was TWO MEGABYTES.
2 COUNT EM 2 MEGABYTES.
Makes for some nice galaxy pics.
http://www.firstpr.com.au/astrophysics/hubble-deep-field/
2 megabytes you cant even buy in a cardboard throw away digital camera any
more.
Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/
Other related posts:
- » [rollei_list] Re: Digital printing V. Analog
