You missed it David, I said
nothing about the film file and was strictly commenting about the digital file. I don't think either drum scanned 35mm film, nor any D-SLR will print a nice 30" image, and I have yet to see any print that changes my mind about that. If you think every pixel captures a line of detail, and that file size is an indication of true resolution, then we are not even on the same page of a discussion. Even if the sensor theoretically achieved one line resolution per pixel row or column, the majority of the current lenses don't resolve that well, especially not from Canon.
Further, take two shots with a 1DsMarkII (or MarkIII, or Nikon D2X), one hand held, and the other tripod mounted: both files will be the same
dimensions, but the tripod shot will appear sharper than the hand held shot . . . this is an example of
resolution. Granted that English is my second language, so if when I state
optical resolution in a statement, feel free to suggest better terminology, and I will be happy to use it later.
The reality of the original topic and question here is that large format is more than enough, and sometimes too much for some printing usage. Even the largest of magazines is substantially under utilizing scanned large format. This is why smaller formats, film or digital, are quite good enough for publication. It is the movements of view cameras that allow an advantage over smaller cameras, not strictly the film area, especially when it is not being used.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
Bookmarks