Hey R,Another good thing about this, is that we are getting closer to the resolution of 35mm film (roughly 3500p resolution).
3500 DPI places the long axis of 35mm film @ about 5250 "pixels. So @ 24 x 36 mm, (roughly 1.5 x 1 inch), digital matching resolution would be about 18.4 megapixels. That's well within doable with modern sensors. (Actually "done-able", since there are 35 mm cameras with greater resolution than 18.4 MP).Hey R,
35mm film = 3500 Dpi? I had no idea it was that high.So to what resolution can you blow up this camera before significant loss of definition? (if thats even the correct term)
No, but NAS SCSI RAID would be the way to go. These are designed to be used tethered to a computer anyway, especially when using the 200 MP modes.Do you need to carry a rack server with you to store the photos? Wondering how big of a file that makes .
Dear "Guest", in response to your bull s***, how does someone who can't even spell camera, know so much about them? I mean really, you only got it right 1 out of 3 tries....In response to the BS above about 35mm film comparison...
To fully cover the resolution of a 35mm film, one needs 24MPixels, which is a known fact. This is why leaders of camera manufactures were so eager to produce 24MPixel camears a few years back.
Today it's just history, and top digital cemars left 35mm quality far behind.
This is what I was talking about originally. It is my understanding that the MP rating is irrelevant, or at least dependent on other aspects of the 'camears'. In other words, a quality 12mp camera is better than a cheap 'so called 18mp camera.In response to the BS above about 35mm film comparison...
To fully cover the resolution of a 35mm film, one needs 24MPixels, which is a known fact.
Is the motion problem something that can ever be overcome with digital?....or does this fall under the laws of physics?Keep in mind this Hassleblad's native resolution is "only" 50 Megapixels, and higher resolution are accomplished via moving the sensor combined with multiple exposure; product page @ Hassleblad http://www.hasselbladusa.com/product...h4d-200ms.aspx So, while "200 megapixels resoltion may be spectacular ad copy, you aren't going to get this @ the Indy 500, photographing the pace car.
Well, "35 mm film" is an ambiguous term at best. It's probably folly to address any direct equivalency between the two media, given that even in B&W films, a very wide range of potential resolutions exist. These have run the gamut from Kodak 2475 recording film, (used in night surveillance) which had grain the size of bowling balls, to Kodak Technical Pan (ISO 25 on a good day), that you couldn't even find the grain. You can do all the s*** house figurin' you want, but the acid test is which media will produce the better outcome in the field, under the prevailing conditions. That's whether it be digital versus film, or digital versus digital. Every time I go to an airshow there's always some a**h*** with a 10 MP iPhone trying to take pictures of the Thunderbirds in flight. I've been stuck with a crappy 6MP D-70, and I'd bet the ranch that I have the better shots.This is what I was talking about originally. It is my understanding that the MP rating is irrelevant, or at least dependent on other aspects of the 'camears'. In other words, a quality 12mp camera is better than a cheap 'so called 18mp camera.
Well, they're moving the same sensor to different positions in between shots. So no, it seems a bit far fetched to think that 6 shots can be taken in succession and still maintain a workable overall shutter speed for action photography. (1/500 sec and above). Then there's the issue of data buffering and storage.Is the motion problem something that can ever be overcome with digital?....or does this fall under the laws of physics?
Unless you were a wedding photographer, commercial photographer, or really old like me, the 2 1/4" square format is probably not immediately identifiable.Why the comparison to 35mm film when the old cameras were medium format (120mm film)