Digital BW, The Print

I am never quite sure whether any subjective element enters the 
equation when comparing film resolution with pixels.

For example, the Phase One H20 back uses the Kodak 16mp chip.  16mp 
is less even than Kodak's claims for 35mm resolution, but Phase One 
maintain their back offers quality better than medium format film.  
Examples I have seen from Phase Ones own demo CD are of exceptional 
quality.

It is a slightly diferent point, as maybe 35mm film does, on paper, 
hold more data than, say, the Phase One back, but in practice, the 
Phase One looks a whole lot better.  There could be a number of 
reasons for this: useful data could be lost in film grain, lack of 
film flatness and scanner limitations. But is seems that, 
subjectively at least, substantially fewer pixels are need from 
direct digital capture than from digitised, scanned film.
--
Quentin