Original article
I have often felt Cecil’s answer to this question was a cop out. Finally found this article which does a much better job of answering the question.
Certainly, this is a bit below Cecil’s usual standards, which is how you can tell that he didn’t write it. It’s a Staff Report.
Powers &8^]
A better answer would discuss 4k and 8k resolution digital cinema… part of the reason all the movie theatres are switching over to digital projectors is that 4k resolution is comparable to the grain in typical 35mm films, so a 4k (roughly 4000 horizontal pixels) image is a good, simple, comparison. As the other page discusses just with still cameras, there’s a lot more to it, but with regards to Hollywood, we’re pretty much dealing with 4k = 35mm and 8k=70mm as a pretty simple standard.
When did that staff column come out?
Wow, I dunno. It’s not in the current files, so it must have been BEFORE we started with vB which puts it well over ten years ago. Back in those balmy days, we had way lower standards for Staff Reports. If y’all think this should be disappeared, let me know.
This was several servers ago … the best I can tell you is that this was one of our earliest Staff Reports and was sometime in 1999.
I don’t even remember who “Staff GRY” was. Perhaps they will come forward.
So don’t be too hard on us, there’s been a lot of technological water under the bridge since 1999!
I don’t think it should be “disappeared” because, as TubaDiva indicated, it was done a looong time ago-it was probably pretty accurate for when it was written.
My problem with it isn’t the accuracy it’s the fact that the writer refused to answer the question. Instead gry just stated that film and digital are different and acted as if there was no way to compare the two. Instead he/she should have talked about the point at which there is no perceivable difference between the two. Basically gry should have answered the question of if a photographer wants to maximize their picture quality (regardless of other convinces a digital camera provides)
Perhaps Cecil should write his own response to this question and bring the article up to the standards we expect from his site.
No, worse. He did answer the question, but gave a horribly inaccurate one. It’s not 1600 dpi, and PPI and DPI are very different. Pixels have billions of colors to choose from. Dots have only four (or six if you do professional printing–there are lighter versions of the typical cyan,and magenta). So you need a lot more dots to get an equivalent number of pixels.
And, yes, it would be a good question for a column, in my opinion. I’ve gotten a lot of the information before, but not all in one place, and lot of it got a bit technical.