«

"Bob Donahue" <> wrote in message
news:. ..
> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
> crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
> (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
> film.)

Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.
Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.

I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
is pretty obvious.

danny wrote:
> "Bob Donahue" <> wrote in message
> news:. ..
>> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the
>> current crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color
>> print film. (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown
>> up from 35mm film.)
>
> Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at
> 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.
>
> I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The
> answer is pretty obvious.

You are mistaking the arbitrary "DPI" number placed into the JPEG file by
some software with the actual resolution of the cameras. The Nikon D3,
for example, has a pixel pitch of 4256 / 36 pixels per mm, i.e. 118
pixels/mm, or 3003 pixels per inch.

David

In article <sJytk.12682$>, danny
<> wrote:

> Film is still better than digital.

only with specialized film in specific situations. otherwise, digital
is *much* better than film.

> You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.

if there's no detail in the film, it doesn't matter how high you scan.

> Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.

no, most digital cameras just write a number (usually 72, sometimes
300). it's meaningless. dpi doesn't matter until you print, at which
point it can be calculated.

> I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
> is pretty obvious.

what's obvious is that you don't understand what you're looking at.

"danny" <> wrote:
>
>"Bob Donahue" <> wrote in message
>news: ...
>> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
>> crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
>> (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
>> film.)
>
>Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.

Actually that's SPI (Samples Per Inch), something _very_ different from
DPI.

DPI is a property of an _OUTPUT_ device, e.g. a printer or a monitor.
It is also (incorrectly?) used to indirectly indicate the size of an
original document when scanned (300DPI, 3000x2000 pixel ==> the original
document was 10x6 inches).

>Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.

Which of course is totally meaningless and only a placeholder, because
traditionally some value had to be put in that field for the benefit of
some programs that otherwise will crash.
It is totally up to you if you display that digital photo on a mega-TV
with 20DPI, an electronic billboard with 0.1DPI or a miniature display
with 600DPI.

>I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
>is pretty obvious.

Apples and cars (no, not even oranges). Those two numbers have nothing
to do with each other.

jue

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-> wrote:
>> danny wrote:
>>>
>>> Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at
>>> 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.
>>>
>>> I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The
>>> answer is pretty obvious.
>>
>> You are mistaking the arbitrary "DPI" number placed into the JPEG
>> file by
>
> David, please. Take a deep breath, calm down, and go get your sense
> of humor back from the dog, who seems to have run off with it.

.... and there was I thinking that the OP might actually not have
understood!

Dang!

No dogs here, BTW. Nor humour in the OPs post.

David

danny wrote:
> "Bob Donahue" <> wrote in message
> news:. ..
>
>> Just curious what people think about this comparison. IMHO, the current
>> crop of digital cameras blow away 35mm film, at least color print film.
>> (Remember grain? I was never satisfied with 8x10s blown up from 35mm
>> film.)
>>
>
> Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.
> Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.
>

The image is converted to 72dpi by the editor by increasing the length x
width.
> I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI? The answer
> is pretty obvious.
>
>
>

On Aug 28, 12:42*pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
> My take is that Danny is joking.
We can only hope.

Scott

On Aug 28, 11:55*am, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> >> "danny" <dannyb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Film is still better than digital. *You can scan film negatives at 9600 DPI.
> >>> Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.
>
> >>> I ask you... Which would you rather have... *9600 DPI or 72 DPI? *The answer
> >>> is pretty obvious.
> >> The scanned 9600 DPI image will not have better
> >> resolution than
> >> the negative, and the 35mm negative doesn't have as much
> >> resolution as a modern 35mm sized electronic sensor.
> >> Further, the DPI resolution listed in the Exif data on
> >> digital
> >> cameras has no relationship to image resolution. *It only a way
> >> to automatically determine a size for printing (by dividing the
> >> pixel dimensions by the DPI value), but it is usually ignored.
> >> If you would like I can produce an image from a Nikon
> >> D3 (which
> >> natively puts "300" in the Exif data for X and Y resolution)
> >> that has been changed to 100,000 DPI. *It will still be exactly
> >> the same image though... *and technically (with 4288 pixels
> >> across on a 1.42" wide sensor) is about 3020 DPI, but of course
> >> just as the film negative does not have that much resolution,
> >> neither does the image recorded by the electronic sensor.
>
> >You'd have sounded a bit more authoritative if you'd have used the
> >correct term in the last paragraph, "PPI".
>
> Who cares? *(Incidentally, PPI is not correct for the sensor either!)

Ok, I will bite, why not? It seems to me the sensor is sampling
pixels, so
why would it not be in PPI.

Scott

On Aug 28, 3:12*pm, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 28, 11:55*am, fl...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
> >> >> that has been changed to 100,000 DPI. *It will still be exactly
> >> >> the same image though... *and technically (with 4288 pixels
> >> >> across on a 1.42" wide sensor) is about 3020 DPI, but of course
> >> >> just as the film negative does not have that much resolution,
> >> >> neither does the image recorded by the electronic sensor.
>
> >> >You'd have sounded a bit more authoritative if you'd have used the
> >> >correct term in the last paragraph, "PPI".
>
> >> Who cares? *(Incidentally, PPI is not correct for the sensor either!)
>
> >Ok, I will bite, why not? *It seems to me the sensor is sampling
> >pixels, so
> >why would it not be in PPI.
>
> The data from each sensor site does not uniquely determine a
> "pixel" value, and more than it is what determines a "dot".
> Each image pixel is made up from the combination of at least 9
> sensors.
The way I look at it is there are sensor pixels and, color filter on
top of the sensor pixels and then output pixels. The point is the
camera does have pixels, even if you don't tend to view them directly.

Scott

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-> wrote:
>>>> danny wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Film is still better than digital. You can scan film negatives at
>>>>> 9600 DPI. Most digital cameras only give you 72 DPI.
>>>>>
>>>>> I ask you... Which would you rather have... 9600 DPI or 72 DPI?
>>>>> The answer is pretty obvious.
>>
>> No dogs here, BTW. Nor humour in the OPs post.
>
> My take is that Danny is joking. It most certainly would be a joke if
> I said it. And given the number of people who bit, a superbly
> effective joke to boot.

Perhaps a joke, but I'm sure we've all had to field similar questions from
novices and the ill-informed. Even the well-informed are not agreed on
"sensor-crop" or "multiplication factor" applied to smaller-sensor "35mm"
cameras!

Cheers,
David