, very, very
[/i] interesting. There's lots of informative stuff on the cumulative effects of loss of contrast in atmosphere, lens, film and scanner, there, which gives a real insight into the problems faced by diehards who attempt to argue the superiority of film over digital sensors, ie. just how important it is to choose your subject well, to use a film that has a sufficient MTF response and a scanner which Nyquist limit is well beyond the image resolution you are hoping to capture. In fact, their 3.3 pixels per line pair requirement implies a 4000 dpi Nikon scanner has a useful resolving limit of about 48 lp/mm. Beyond that, detail is so faint that it's probably insignificant.
It also seems quite extraordinary that at this level of the technological cutting edge, a film based camera is far lighter, cheaper and more convenient to use.Performance
The facial expressions of an half a stadium of fans can be captured at passport resolution in a single instant as they react to events on the field.Weight
When the camera body (without protective cover) and a fully loaded film magazine are coupled together, their collective weight is 71.7 pounds. Adding the heavy-duty tripod brings the total to 108.5 pounds.
(Hey! That no heavier than a bag of cement )Equivalent digital camera
The digital imaging systems in $200M-$1000M advanced imaging satellites are roughly comparable to the Gigapxl™ camera in resolution. However, they are far from commercially available, require the cold of space for low-noise operation, and are about the size of a school bus.