Digital BW, The Print

You all need to keep in mind that the image size improvement for an increase in pixels is 
the square root of the megapix improvement.  Just for example, if you go from a 6MP 
camera to a 12MP camera, the megapix improvement is a factor of 2 and the square root 
of 2 is 1.4.  Hence if you can do a great 8x10 with 6 MP, you can do a great 11.2x 14 with 
12MP, or of course a good 16x20 would go to 22.4x28.  This is a nice change.

But going from 6MP to 8MP is a dribble not worth spending the money on unless you have 
a desparate need, or it has some other improvement.

And keep in mind that 8MP is about 2300x3460 and well scanned 35mm is 4000x6000 to 
say nothing of medium format.  So in spite of the wonders of digital, which I use for some 
things, and the big prints that various users are happy with,  film has dramatically more 
resolution.

Of course others will argue and I know that, so let's not fill up the group with endless digi 
vs film.  They both have their uses.

And for "big prints", it depends on how far you view them from.  How does it look from 
"where they'll see it", as opposed to with a loupe?

Scott


 --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Andre" <am1000@v...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
> <cj@c...> wrote:
> > 
> > >What I'd consider instead is 
> > >trying to go up to 24 x 30 on the 7600 at 240 or 180 ppi and waiting 
> > >for Canon to replace the 6.3 MP 10D with an 8.2 MP 10D+ or
> > something. 
> 
> Canon's new 8mp 20D digital camera has an APS-C size photo sensor
> again. So that means the pixel/photo site size is reduced compared to