Printable View
I agree for a large scale operation, but going digital is cost prohibitive for a very low volume operation such as the offices of a physician or dentist that is located in a storefront.Quote:
Originally posted by Seapod
I am a surgeon and work at four separate hospitals in Cincinnati. All of these hospitals have moved to a filmless system. The simple reason is cost. It costs too much to print films multiple times and have them lost and digital storage is cheaper.
Holy Thread Resurrection, Batman!
who cares? It's a sticky...Quote:
Originally posted by Bearded Kirklander
Holy Thread Resurrection, Batman!
As for mp, I'm picking up a Canon Ixus 50, which I will use as an ultracompact when I dont feel like using the D70.
Didn't say I cared, just made the quote. :)Quote:
Originally posted by PCJ
who cares? It's a sticky...
I have the Canon Ixus 500 for a similar purpose, it can share the CF cards with my big Fuji and it's small enough I can carry it with me everywhere without noticing it, plus for its size it's a great little camera.Quote:
Originally posted by PCJ
who cares? It's a sticky...
As for mp, I'm picking up a Canon Ixus 50, which I will use as an ultracompact when I dont feel like using the D70.
John
The Hasselblad H1D 22MP is enough. I think that's the model.
Anything else is just a toy.
Nothing quite like 150MB images.:)
One of my friends has one. It is amazing. The detail is beyond what you can even see with your EYES.
Just wait until the GIGAPIXEL camera comes out. It will be able to see through walls.
As long as you can get 300 dpi of actual image data, you should be good to go, I would think. :)
Well.. if you're printing on basic inkjets you're not going to need more than 150dpi to reach the maximum quality level. There's not really any difference at all above 150 until you get to the weird levels that manufacturers quote.Quote:
Originally posted by Bearded Kirklander
As long as you can get 300 dpi of actual image data, you should be good to go, I would think. :)
For instance, the 4800x1200 on HP printers requires a 1200dpi source image. When you print it though (and you'll have to give it about an hour to spool that much of a file) you'll rarely see much difference from 150. It may look nicer, but it's arguable as to whether that's because of the higher dpi or simply because it took much longer and gave much more attention to quality and used more ink.
If you have that new Canon with the 1 picoliter system (the IP5000 I think) then you may need 200dpi, but I have yet to test it.
It could also be argued that the 360dpi print engines that some companies use (such as Epson) may look better at 180dpi than 150dpi. I have an Epson but I haven't done extensive testing on that. I do know that at 150 it looks pretty much as good as I would think it's going to look though.
-MrD
Gotta disagree Dig. But I don'w want a long, drawn out thread about it, so I'll just leave it at that. :)
Gigapixel is already out.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImaNihilist
http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm
Holy Thread Ressurection, Batman!
Well, it is a sticky, so I guess it's always there to be commented on.
-MrD
True dat.
I have a nikon 3.0 megapixel cam that doesnt take very good pictures, but my friend has a 5.0 megapixel fuji that is awesome. I know im sort of comparing apples to oranges, but I will still say that 5 is the sweet spot
I agree that 5mp seems the sweet spot. 8x10's look fine with that res for me, even when printed at Costco. Maybe I'm not the pickiest guy, but the 240 dpi of data in a 5mp shot on 8x10 seems to look just as good as 35mm film prints at 8x10. If anything, they did not have the grainyness that the 35mm print.
8mp would be cool, but I guess the 5mp level is holding its own better than some folks expected.