Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
There is also another issue...called sampling. In the digital world, 
you need to sample at slightly more than 2x the smallest thing you 
want to RELIABLY detect. So, in order to RELIABLY detect 160lines/mm 
(only on axis, off axis is 1.4x), you need to sample at 320 
lines/mm...in both axes (X and Y), therefore giving you 4x your 
initial estimation of 22.1 M pixels, and this doesn't take into 
account the Bayer pattern (four sensor cells for one color pixels 
worth of information). Again, showing that more like 100M is in 
reality what is needed to equivalent top 35mm film.

Have you ever read this:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/d30_vs_film.htm

And, I'll preface this by saying: I am absolutely no expert in the 
field, and most of what I "know" is from what I read on forums like 
this. I pick what makes sense to me (or things/theorys I can 
comprehend) and go from there. So I make my statement with no malice 
or disrespect.

From what I see -it (digital) tops it (film) already. Ineresting, out 
of that 100m that film (according to you) holds, how much of that info 
will translate into the print, after it's gone through the lens - 
through the enlarger (another lense), and then onto the paper - 
yet another factor that will affect the resolution ? And what lense is 
going to be able to resolve such a resolution? And again, just who in 
the consumer market has the equipment/skill to extract all that info 
as well. (as fine a grain as you can make film, you still  have grain) 
Please forgive me, i've been studying a lot lately - and am learing 
there is quite a lot more to resolution that just numbers. I've seen 
prints from the D30 at 20x30 that would not have appeard as good if 
they were shot on 35mm. 

http://www.nyphotographics.com/dpreview/CRW_2292.jpg

yes, you CAN go that big with 35, but it Wont be as clean.
To me, it seems numbers and equations dont answer everything 
logically. I read so many different explanations of film is better,
digital is better... but when I see a decent print from a decent 
digital camera - numbers dont seem to matter too much. 
again, not to offend, just my view.
Take Care,
jerry