I have no particular project in mind so I'm just asking in order to have a better understanding:
Let's say I'm an artist shooting pictures with a 35mm camera and my point would be to make really big prints for an exhibition (let's say 1m x 1,5m).
If I scan the negatives which one of these two answers would apply ?
there's a theoretical maximum scanning resolution above which there is no relevant detail to be gotten, no matter how big the actual print is supposed be (so printing a picture digitally or manually would both give an equal result in terms of details). If this answer is true, which maximum resolution would that be ?
No matter how high the scanning resolution is, there will always be a size above which an analog print will be more detailed than a digital one (unless using some kind of software interpolation maybe?).
I ask because every discussion about this topic ends up with people saying that big digital printing are very fine because people are supposed to see them from a distance anyway. But that's an assumption. It's not necessarily the case. So, what if we look closely? Would we see any difference then?
A part of me thinks that we would eventually see pixels but at the same time, if the pixels are below the size of the film grain, it won't be noticeable anyway. So, I'm really not sure.