Visual impact of projected slides, lost?

I got curious and did a small bit of web research and found a site that claims, "The resolution on our film recorder is 2731x4097 and 5462x8192, sending images larger than the output size will not improve the output quality." Sounds to me that capturing the full resolution of even a 1DsII is possible.

I just got back a reply to an inquiry to another place, about the resolution of reproduction in the digital-to-slide:

"All of the digital information that we receive is used to expose the film (and we do not crop any one's images). The theoretical maximum amount of analogue information that the film can register is about 30 megs. Any digital amount of information past that that amount is beyond the accutance [resolving ability] of the film and thus is superfluous. However, given these facts, we accept many larger digital file sizes when they are sent. If you have larger files than 8 megs you should get better quality 35 mm color slides. Finally, sending us Tiff files will also result in slightly higher quality slides because there is far more digital information in Tiffs than in Jpegs. A last note. 35 mm slide film has a tremendous amount of analogue capacity. An ASA 100 slide when drum scanned at 9,000 dpi optical scanning resolution will produce a full color range digital file of about 650 megs. "

So, branching this discussion a bit into the 'digital vs. film' discussion, digital cameras have a very long ways to go before they can even equal a good scanned film!

Wilt wrote in post #4046368
So, branching this discussion a bit into the 'digital vs. film' discussion, digital cameras have a very long ways to go before they can even equal a good scanned film!

Heres a qustion then, just how much of that scanned information in the 650mb file is actualy useful?

Moppie wrote in post #4046458
Heres a qustion then, just how much of that scanned information in the 650mb file is actualy useful?

Good question!

Interestingly, the reply which I had received mentioned exceeding the acutance of the film at 30Meg file size. One could surmise that 620Meg of that 650Meg file size is wasted, if you follow that logic.

I have projected my 8 meg images to wall size (I mean in an auditorium, not home) and got plenty of WOW from the audience.

Moppie wrote in post #4046458
Heres a qustion then, just how much of that scanned information in the 650mb file is actualy useful?

Depends on your scanner and your underlying file.

A 4x5 in an Imacon scanner is quite a bit different than a 35mm slide on an Epson flatbed. So you can't judge detail content by file size or pixel count alone.

Then lets phrase it differently.

How much of the detail that can be gathered by scanning a slide is actually detail that is not visible to the human eye, or is simply beyond what could ever be needed, short of projecting an image onto the side of a planet?

And here I thought these discussions were long over. I can't say I will ever, in my lifetime, need a 650mb file. I have a 5D, a Epson 3800 printer and manage to print some stunning images - and the 5D provides some great projected images. Can't see that I could ask for more. I do remember slides, however. I avoided shooting slides like the plague because I found them so darn boring. Prints were always so much more tactile and easier to share. But, thats just me.

Barb42 wrote in post #4053341
And here I thought these discussions were long over. I can't say I will ever, in my lifetime, need a 650mb file. I have a 5D, a Epson 3800 printer and manage to print some stunning images - and the 5D provides some great projected images. Can't see that I could ask for more. I do remember slides, however. I avoided shooting slides like the plague because I found them so darn boring. Prints were always so much more tactile and easier to share. But, thats just me.

Good point about the boring stuff.

I started using slides, and was "convinced" by family members to use colour negative film for prints, because it was easier for them to see the pics.

However, I NEVER EVER saw a print that rivalled the pure "WOW" that a projected slide evoked. It can be stunning.

EDIT: Perhaps now a large giclee print might come close. Anyone have any experience with this? I have seen artist's watercolours printed this way and it's impressive.

Giclee, as I understand it, is mainly useful for reproducing art. It's not especially useful for photographic printing (as opposed to using any old other kind of high-end printer). It uses very tiny droplets of ink, which helps reproduce texture of brushes and canvas and thick paint, etc.

The real way to make prints, which I plan to do at some point, is to find someone who uses a Lightjet. This is a printer that actually exposes RA4-process photo paper, which is then chemically developed. So rather than droplets of ink, it's optically exposed, and you can do this from a digital file.

DrPablo wrote in post #4055585
The real way to make prints, which I plan to do at some point, is to find someone who uses a Lightjet. This is a printer that actually exposes RA4-process photo paper, which is then chemically developed. So rather than droplets of ink, it's optically exposed, and you can do this from a digital file.

I am starting to drool at the thought of something like the Lightjet being something in the home, and I can print Ilfochromes from digital and process them in my Jobo, like I make from slides!

Yeah, I think that's a very appealing idea. It's got to be less expensive to make a projector than to make a printer. I haven't heard of Lightjets being used for Ilfochrome -- only for RA4. I guess that means making a digital negative, right?

DrPablo wrote in post #4055585
Giclee, as I understand it, is mainly useful for reproducing art. It's not especially useful for photographic printing (as opposed to using any old other kind of high-end printer). It uses very tiny droplets of ink, which helps reproduce texture of brushes and canvas and thick paint, etc.

The real way to make prints, which I plan to do at some point, is to find someone who uses a Lightjet. This is a printer that actually exposes RA4-process photo paper, which is then chemically developed. So rather than droplets of ink, it's optically exposed, and you can do this from a digital file.

Thanks Doc.

(to myself): now which airport has a Lightjet?

DrPablo wrote in post #4059424
Yeah, I think that's a very appealing idea. It's got to be less expensive to make a projector than to make a printer. I haven't heard of Lightjets being used for Ilfochrome -- only for RA4. I guess that means making a digital negative, right?

Actually I read that they had something printed on Ilfochrome, and that the use of Fuji Crystal ultraglossy paper produced results which were as vivid as the Ilfochrome in saturation, yet had the advantage of 60 year archival life...double Ilfochrome!

I am in the middle of scanning 3000 or so slides from of my siblings and I growing up. We are now aged range 51 to 34. And last christmas, someone started showing these slides and everyone that entered the house went up there to watch too. My siblings and nieces and nephews were all up there. I think they were shown for 90 minutes and I'm sure everyone would have stayed to view every cube of slides, but there just wasn't time for it.