10-06-2016, 05:48 AM
- I reacted to Toni-A's sentence. If you want to bring in more conditions and a real target comparison (because that's what counts after all, I agree), you're opening a new discussion - not his point that FF sensors have twice the resolution of standard APS-C which IS misleading. Resolution ≠absolute pixel count, that's all I said and proved.
- and he was not referring to output or FoV
- By avoiding other variables you tend to get results which also can be confusing: AA filter and color depth have an impact, so ignoring them, is also misleading
- By "removing" variables you just state, all sensors should have the same output target. IMO the reason to buy bigger sensors and justifiy the exponential costs is the ability of getting either bigger output sizes or more detailed crops. Meaning, even if the sensor itself has higher resolutions (talking now of Toni-A's sentence again) the enlargement is still relevant.
- basically I could use a black box, cut a mount for a large format lens in and on the other side an open frame with a normal flatbed scanner with the ability to scan transparent film. Fantasy resolution like 4800 dpi aside and just calculating 1200 dpi of the scanner, we get a picture at least of 9921 × 14031 pixel (A4, 210 × 297 mm - most good scanners offer more area) = 139.2 MP. A lot of information although this "sensor", acting like a slow mo shutter, only resolves 1200 dpi / 25.4 mm = 47.2 p/mm.
- Going very small with output, like 8" or so, printers already are not able to resolve all informations coming from the sensors - ignoring the purpose of bigger sensors doesn't help.