Welp, yes, I'm bringing this up again. Only because the winter season approaches, I'm breaking out my scope and my OM-1 and visited my local photolab. Come to find out they have the capability of outputting drum scans up to 500mb medium format files, pretty cool.
Anyways, I was wondering again about the actual benefits of CCD over film when it comes to resolution. Someone correct me if i'm wrong please, but the latest Canon 20D shoots a max resolution of about 3500x2300 (8.2MP), bit depth of 12 across the board, saves in RAW and JPG, and has a film plane of 22.5x15 mm. A cheap Epson photo scanner does about 4800x9600 dpi (with interpolation 12800 x 12800) has 48 bit color and 16 greyscale, can output in multiple high quality formats (JPG can cause noise and artifacts), as well as scanning 35mm and med. format which is innordinately larger. 200 bucks for scanner... 1800 bucks for 20D.
It seems to me the more I analyze the market that with every new digital camera there is also a marked increase in scanner technology (makes sense since they both largely use CCD). With the limitations of film basically limited to our ability to process the info. on it (i.e. scanning and/or interpolating it)can there ever really be a doubt as to which is the better medium?
Im really asking this because I'm thinking about purchasing a scanner and getting further into 35mm and was wondering if I should just bone up and drop some coin on an expensive CCD.
Anyways, I was wondering again about the actual benefits of CCD over film when it comes to resolution. Someone correct me if i'm wrong please, but the latest Canon 20D shoots a max resolution of about 3500x2300 (8.2MP), bit depth of 12 across the board, saves in RAW and JPG, and has a film plane of 22.5x15 mm. A cheap Epson photo scanner does about 4800x9600 dpi (with interpolation 12800 x 12800) has 48 bit color and 16 greyscale, can output in multiple high quality formats (JPG can cause noise and artifacts), as well as scanning 35mm and med. format which is innordinately larger. 200 bucks for scanner... 1800 bucks for 20D.
It seems to me the more I analyze the market that with every new digital camera there is also a marked increase in scanner technology (makes sense since they both largely use CCD). With the limitations of film basically limited to our ability to process the info. on it (i.e. scanning and/or interpolating it)can there ever really be a doubt as to which is the better medium?
Im really asking this because I'm thinking about purchasing a scanner and getting further into 35mm and was wondering if I should just bone up and drop some coin on an expensive CCD.
