This is the argument:
1. High end scanners can record more detail form a 4x5 negative than digital cameras can produce on their own.
2. If you want the most detail in your images that you can get for the price, buying a scanner and 4x5 film camera will produce more detail and do it cheaper than an 8,000US digital camera, or even a 30, 000.
3. If someone tells you this is not true, here is my evidence [see KR site].
4. [We ignore the reference to being paid off by camera companies because that is another argument which I have already covered.]
5. Therefore, scanned 4x5 negatives will produce vastly better images than digital cameras, until digital cameras can out resolve scanners.
Caveat: This image superiority will most likely not be noticeable with images 13x19 and smaller.
You can't argue with the above because it's so undefined! Lets look at a few:
"High end scanners can record more detail form a 4x5 negative than digital cameras can produce on their own."
Define high end scanner? I just posted above how two so called high end scanners produced huge differences in the scan. Who's opinion of high end? CCD or PMT? Oil mounted? Who did the scan and did they know how to use the software. In the wrong hands, anyone can make a scan on a "high end" scanner that sucks and digital "wins". The scan is critical to the evaluation here. How can someone argue film is "better" when scanned considering a hugely critical part of the process is so undefined? And was the film shot correctly for scanning or looking pretty on a light box? Was the digital shot for optimal quality (ETTR) and what Raw converter and end user? What about sharpening? In scanner or converter? So someone wants to write a definitive analysis of which is better using one sentence and boneheads boggle it up as it its the word of god?
Ken certainly doesn't act (write or investigate) like a scientist, rocket or otherwise.
"If you want the most detail in your images that you can get for the price, buying a scanner and 4x5 film camera will produce more detail and do it cheaper than an 8,000US digital camera, or even a 30, 000"
Again, at face value, that's rubbish. Does the person making this statement have any idea the cost of a good drum scanner like a Tango (let alone the maintenance agreements)? And who's defining detail? All that non image forming grain is or isn't detail?
"5. Therefore, scanned 4x5 negatives will produce vastly better images than digital cameras, until digital cameras can out resolve scanners. "
Most "experts" (at least those with scientific bkgnds I respect, Ken not one) suggest that scanning film over 3000ppi or so buys you nothing in terms of data. You're resolved down to the film grain. But again, huge difference in what you get with a 3000, lets even say 5000ppi scan off a PMT drum, oil/gel mounted and a CCD scanner using a decent lens (Imacon). So who's to say digital can't out resolve the scanner? Where's Ken's science?