– Computers don’t use Bayer interpolation; camera imaging sensors do. Bayer interpolation is how the sensor gets three color values (R, G and B) for each pixel position, even though each sensor pixel is covered by only one color in the filter mosaic; the interpolation derives the other two colors.

That means it’s only the color value that’s interpolated, not the brightness value… so your statement farther down that “digital cameras… only really ‘see’ 1/3 of the claimed megapixel value” is also off-base, because it’s only the color data that’s interpolated; the luminance data, which accounts for most of what the eye registers as detail, is per-pixel accurate.

– Your “How many megapixels are required for an N size print” chart is unrealistically demanding; in real life, not nearly as many pixels are needed as the chart shows. That’s because very few output devices actually resolve 300 machine pixels per inch.

Even those that run the print engine at 300 ppi don’t actually resolve that much, because the dye spreads into the emulsion; in practice, a viewer won’t be able to see any difference between a 300ppi print and a 240ppi print, and most people find a 180 ppi print just as acceptable.) For a chart based on real-world output devices, see here:
http://ranger9.net/?p=46

The practical criteria actually get less demanding as prints get larger, because people seldom examine a 24×36 print at nose-touching range. So a letter-size print, which is about the largest size you can examine conveniently at reading distance, typically is the worst-case scenario. On the other hand, you can easily blow up a 6-megapixel image to billboard size, since nobody sees a billboard from less than hundreds of feet away!

– “REAL professional photographers still use film for all of their important work”… really? My employer buys a couple of million dollars’ worth of high-end studio photography per year, and ALL of it is shot as digital — guess either those guys aren’t “REAL professionals” or they don’t regard my employer’s work as “important,” huh?

C’mon, be serious — we all love the aesthetics of film and it’s still a great medium of artistic expression, but anti-digital hype is SO 20th century. If your final deliverable is a digital image — and for commercial use, that’s almost always the case — you get a cleaner file if you start with a digital original.

Besides, there’s no way you’re ever gonna scan a full “88 megapixels” worth of actual data out of a piece of 35mm film… once you crank your scanner much past 4000 ppi, all you’re doing is imaging more grain and dust! (On the other hand, if you’re talking about an 8×10 transparency on a drum scanner, THEN maybe you can convince me! A lot of high-end catalog work still gets shot on sheet film.)

Oh, well, snark mode off — thanks for a fun challenge, at least! And I love what you’re doing with your RX8!