S8+ display is 529dpi. Good film is ~5000dpi.

Post #417,855 by pwhysall 4/23/17 4:50:18 AM 4/23/17 4:50:18 AM Reply	S8+ display is 529dpi. Good film is ~5000dpi. But remember that those 5000 dots per inch are all you've got - they've got to provide all the detail, whether you print at A4 or A00. This equates to ~20MP - so, my full-frame Canon 6D is very (very) roughly equivalent to film, although it's better or worse or the same, depending on the film and the ISO and other stuff too. Now, there are DSLRs with 35mm sensors that have 30 and even 50 MP resolutions - these are pointless for regular printing and viewing, but they're ideal for product photography (where noise is simply not allowed), for printing really, REALLY big, or simply for giving the photographer the freedom to crop, thus potentially turning a modest (and therefore practical) zoom lens into a cheap and cheerful version of a much longer lens. Phone and some laptop (i.e. the high-DPI/Retina) displays are now able to resolve detail better than most printers, which tend to top out at a practical limit of 600DPI for monochrome and a lot less than that for colour.
Post #417,856 by Ashton 4/23/17 7:13:54 AM 4/23/17 7:13:54 AM Reply	Thanks much, all good points (and with numbers used exactly where they matter.) Point taken too, where huge enlargements will be wanted, though I always have trouble intermingling aims of AD-bizness -vs- Art Sweet and undefinable Like the pineapple --line from a Piet Hein Grook, that. I retain still a box of K-slides I took of *Ansel Adams, while doing his work: much of the set-up and other details handled by an able assistant.) But considering (say) a Venn diagram where the physics details have an overlay and then: the several published versions of Ansel's meticulous use of a spot-photometer (not to mention his enlarger/dodging in production of actual B&W prints, one at a time.. I daresay that the entire ingredients of a finished Art-work by cohorts of this calibre, just can't possible be reduced to ... that (drat!) algorithm idea. Impressive as the new techno is (and its numbers, where they count) I'm betting that his iconic photos (moon over El Capitan for ex.) might or might not be amenable to 'improvement'--even were he still around--had he the option. (But that is a w.a.g. from me; I recognize enough of the qualities of an able Photographer to recognize what I lack,) confessing that a very few 'shots' of them all: might qualify as real Photographs, via the luck of the conditions and maybe having pressed the shutter at the right Instant. (When you can do that-all with regularity ... you're a better man than I, Gunga Din.) * I still haven't figured out the best thing to do with these slides; clearly they should end up with an absolute AA-focussed collector out there: one who might glean something from the work-while-in-progress, quite more than "via my camera angles" while necessarily staying out of the way (Nikon prior to the F2.) No worries though; as Mr. Micawber was wont to say, >Something will turn up..
Post #417,857 by drook 4/23/17 10:02:02 AM 4/23/17 10:02:02 AM Reply	Re: pressing the shutter at the right instant http://m.imgur.com/gallery/FOogB As for your collection, if you found a method to scan a representative half-dozen I'll bet Peter could put those up on a few special-interest sites that would get you plenty of interest in taking them off your hands. -- Drew
Post #417,868 by Ashton 4/24/17 2:33:03 AM 4/24/17 2:33:03 AM Reply	Good thoughts, thanks. Would have to find a decent quality slide copying device to borrow/rent, of the sort whose color temp, etc. are malleable but also calibrated (to something.) It's possible. As to 720,000 pix to get to That spectacular bird shot11 well.. it sounds more like obsession than ..dedication. Can't spare the heart beats! Apropos I think: a recent factoid claimed (heard en passant) That the fewer number of heartbeats/min of a critter (incl. US) ... the longer the life. Cited was an elephant and a few others: best guesstimate was: ya gets about 1.5 billion heartbeats! Fascinating enough theory that I hope it receives further close attention.
Post #417,869 by drook 4/24/17 2:38:38 AM 4/24/17 2:38:38 AM Reply	I've heard the heartbeat theory ... Don't like it Reminds me of the scene in Amadeus where he's told that the ear can only hear so many notes in an evening, and his Opera had too many. -- Drew
Post #417,870 by pwhysall 4/24/17 3:38:27 AM 4/24/17 3:39:48 AM Reply	Don't contemplate doing it yourself Negative/slide scanning is a surprisingly tricksy business, and it's remarkable what can be achieved with a professional-grade drum scanner by a skilled operator. Conversely, it's remarkable what a pile of bullshit can be achieved - even with expensive gear - by someone who's not. tl;dr: pay someone to do it for you. Edited by pwhysall April 24, 2017, 03:39:48 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #417,906 by Ashton 4/25/17 7:52:18 PM 4/25/17 7:52:18 PM Reply	Thou sayest and, shall seek such a One via the magick of (hell, Google or Other) You're quite right; I may comprehend the basics re the Numbers but as you remind, none of that much matters where the Lore is indispensable to ... Doin it Rihgt.

Welcome to IWETHEY!