Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Marcel" data-source="post: 329095" data-attributes="member: 3903">Re: 610 vs 7100Now don't take all of this too seriously. It's not worth fighting for.I do understand your point Wayne and I know this is how it worked in analog film: A larger negative had to be enlarged less to produce the same size image. But I thought that since we are dealing with digital, the pixels are not actually enlarged (please correct me if I'm wrong), they are just given to a printer or a screen as means of interpretation. This is why I thought that a 24MP image would have the same definition whether it came from FX or DX. I think I'm getting lost with a concept here. I wouldn't mind hearing a clearer explanation to ease my brain. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Marcel, post: 329095, member: 3903"] [b]Re: 610 vs 7100[/b] Now don't take all of this too seriously. It's not worth fighting for. I do understand your point Wayne and I know this is how it worked in analog film: A larger negative had to be enlarged less to produce the same size image. But I thought that since we are dealing with digital, the pixels are not actually enlarged (please correct me if I'm wrong), they are just given to a printer or a screen as means of interpretation. This is why I thought that a 24MP image would have the same definition whether it came from FX or DX. I think I'm getting lost with a concept here. I wouldn't mind hearing a clearer explanation to ease my brain. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification