Digital BW, The Print

Hi Gareth;

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "garethjolly" 
<garethjolly@y...> wrote:
>>  Top end digital is
> also very expensive compared to top end 35mm

Top end digital might be, but a Rebel XT and a couple lenses will 
get you excellent results for under $2000.00. That's less than many 
of your Leica lenses alone.


> 
> - I use a Leica M7 (and recently also an Xpan).  I'd like to get a
> digilux, but at the moment, it's spec.s are well off the pace (5
> megapixel).  Actually, ideally, I'd like a digital M where I could 
use
> my existing lens. 

Leica could well be out of business before you get your wish-I hope 
not, but there have been ominous rumblings 

>>To be honest, I wouldn't go back to an SLR.  

That's a shame, because the best reasonably priced digicams right 
now are DSLRs.


> - how does a 16MP camera give a 48M 8 bit RGB image?  There's
> something I don't understand about how megapixels translate into 
file
> size.  Can someone explain?

I'll let someone else get into the numbers on this, but consider:

Pixel dimensions on my Canon 5D (12.8MP about 42MB RGB) are: 4368 x 
2912. You need to feed an Epson a minimum of 200ppi to get good 
image quality, that divides out to an image size of 21.85 x 14.56 
inches. Un-interpolated, with no noise or "grain" up to ISO 400, and 
much less grain than Tri-X at ISO 1600. Though one could argue about 
the esthetics of real film grain v. digital 'noise' grain. With good 
interpolation software you can get an 8, 12.8 or 16MP image up to 
sizes I never dared think about with 35mm film. And with a wide-
format printer you can do it yourself at a reasonable price and 
no 'noise' from the lab techs.

> 
> 
> - incidentally, I have Coolscan 4000ED with roll film adapter.  
It's a
> good scanner - although, the funny thing is, I think I was getting
> sharper scans with my old Coolscan LS20...   Wonder if Nikon has 
been
> economising on the lens?

I have a Nikon 8000ED (medium format) and I don't think Nikon is 
econimizing on the lenses. If I have a grainy neg, the grain clearly 
gets resolved as such, not the mush you get from most flatbeds. But 
their optical path & light source make for a very limited depth of 
focus, and that roll film adapter is probably not up to keeping the 
film flat enough or in the best alignment all the time. 35mm film 
has a relatively pronounced arch towards the center that produces 
visible  focus fall-off. If you have some critical needs try their 
glass carrier-the max sharpness is reduced a tiny bit, but the 
entire neg is uniformly sharp.

At any rate, my advice is take a deep breath and jump on board. If 
you start with something that's current and popular, you can re-sell 
it in a yaer and get about 50% of your money to put into an upgrade. 
A year down the road you'll be using your film cameras so little 
you'll have to build them a special glass case with a brass plaque 
to memorialize them in. (G)

Regards,

Steve Karafyllakis