Digital BW, The Print

A long time ago I called Kodak's digital division and asked a few
questions, one of them being, how many pixels would it take to equal the
information on a Kodachrome ISO 25 film. He said 12 million pixels would
equal Kodachrome. Don't know if this is still true, but he seemed to
know what he was talking about. That was years ago when a 12 million
pixel chip was only a dream.
Jer

> 
> I think I've seen it said on another, scanning list that in the best
> 35mm films there's detail down (up?) to about 6000 samples per inch,
> but I'm not sure resolution is the issue. Whatever the limits of film
> are, I'm curious to know how to relate them to lens quality, scan
> quality, and print quality.
> 
> Sam McCandless           samcc@...

> > > There is a big difference
> > > between Top grade glass and average lenses, and it really shows
> > > up in digital.

> >Actually, that's is not true, as I stated above.  Most of the web sites that
> >talk about this stuff acknowledge this readily.  Even DPReview says that the
> >D-60 is probably the first digital camera (as far as the 35mm-esque
> >varieties) that the lense might actually matter ;-)

Austin, on this one I really disagree. It is extremely obvious that the
canon macro lenses are much sharper than say, the 28-135 IS Canon Zoom
lens on my D30 Digital camera. Anybody can easily see the difference.
Even at infinity, to say nothing of closeups. This is very consistent,
from image to image, and I've tested the two lenses many times on the
same subjects.

Jer