Quote Originally Posted by Bruce Watson View Post
Not quite. The scanner creates a deterministic image from a stochastic image. It's not a straight up conversion. There's some blurring and averaging taking place, but at a very low level. If done well, below the level at which image detail information is recorded on the film. If that's the case, then for all practical purposes a scanner does what you say.

The major difference to me is that the digital capture is a first generation copy. A film capture is also a first generation copy. When you scan the film, you are making a second generation copy. The big question though is "does it matter?" As far as I can see, it doesn't, not even when making 10-12x enlargements.

The problem in comparing digital capture to scanned film is that, like most such comparisons, it's an apples to oranges comparison. Both methods have their own strengths and their own weaknesses. So what matters to me may not matter to you, and vice versa. I'm more interested in the images than I am in the technology of the capture. But that's just me.
Thank you for your patience, Bruce. I'm more interested in images, too, but comparing apples and oranges becomes important when one has a choice between the two. Until recently, I did not, and any interest in such a comparison was purely theoretical, but now it's a practical issue due careful consideration. I appreciate your experienced perspective.