Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI



"Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Rob wrote:
> > I don't see why stochastic or random dye clouds inherently provides more
> > information than a pixel.
> Actually, FAR more.  It's their position and size, not their color, that
is
> far more information than pixels are.  Pixels (in current implementations)
> must fall on a grid pattern, and are a fixed size.

But the information in a pixel is limited only by the number of bits used to
represent the colour.  I don't see why a random pattern of dyes would
represent an image better than a grid pattern of pixels with a point size
equivalent to the size of the smallest dye cloud.

Can you explain your claim in some way that shows me how one is better
than the other?  If you're comparing say a 2700dpi pixel grid with a film
emulsion, then I agree.  But as far as I can tell, it's just a matter of
increasing
the resolution of the grid and/or the number of bits in each pixel and you
should be able to meet or exceed the amount of information stored in the
film.

For practical purposes there has to be a point where the difference becomes
irrelevent, or people wouldn't use scanning back cameras or really high res
CCD cameras in professional situations.

Rob





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.