Re: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?
- From: "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:01:46 +0900
"Raphael Bustin" <foo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Roger N. Clark (change username) wrote:
200 MP
(now experimenting with changing from scanned 4x5
film to digital mosaics).
I love my 10D but you know, there's nothing like 100
million pixels from scanned 4x5" film.
This doesn't diminish my lust for a Canon 5D.
You'd get to 100 or 200 MP a lot faster if you start with 12.7 than if you
start with 6 or 8.
The incremental number of pixels per frame would be a lot larger, since you
could use only slightly more pixels in the overlap, thus putting the
majority of the added pixels into the total. (I think, anyway.)
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?
- From: rafe b
- Re: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?
- References:
- STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?
- From: tiresia2
- Re: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?
- From: Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
- Re: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?
- From: Raphael Bustin
- STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?
- Prev by Date: Re: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?
- Next by Date: Re: Filename TO Exif comments
- Previous by thread: Re: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?
- Next by thread: Re: STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|