(no subject)

[ffutures]

Just in case you were wondering what the pro photographers buy as digital cameras...

http://www.hasselblad.se/products/level3.asp?secId=1135&itemId=3362

Well, actually, I think that most are still going for Nikon, Canon, etc. at under half the resolution since this is a SERIOUSLY silly price and not a particularly fast shutter, but if you need something like this you probably need it badly.

Comments

[raygungothic.livejournal.com]

Hmm. You would have thought so, but it doesn't seem to work quite that way; minimum size of dot you can resolve doesn't seem to be quite the same thing as the amount of detail beyond which no extra detail has a perceptible effect on the overall impression. Otherwise, at the size of a small print, it would be impossible to tell the difference between three and six megapixels, 35mm film and 6x6 rollfilm - but it does seem to be. (though I've never found a way of putting that test together with comparable lenses)

Another thought - I'm pretty sure some image editing processes benefit greatly from having a much higher resolution image than strictly necessary for the end result. Presumably this affects pro studio work more than anyone else.

Give me an Autochrome any day... if only we still knew how to make them.