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:
> > But a dye cloud is more than color.  It is ALSO shape and
> position.  Those
> > characteristics (information) are NOT represented by color.
> How is a randomly sized and shaped dye cloud a useful characteristic of
> shape and position?  How is it more useful than a precise position in an
> array?

Because it is.  It's the way the world works.  It IS additional information,
plain and simple.  Usefulness is a completely different issue, but it is
ALSO useful, to a point.

> > Yes, but increase it to what?  You would need to be able to
> scan the exact
> > edges of every randomly placed dye cloud...it's about three orders of
> > magnitude more information than is currently possible.
> Now you're talking scanning, which I wasn't.  I was talking about
> representing
> an image with a pixel array, not the process of getting the image into the
> array.
> If you scan film, you're making the process a lot harder than
> other methods
> of
> digitally capturing an image.

Absolutely not true.  Film scanning is STILL better than any digital camera
in existence.

> We've already spent a lot of bandwidth
> talking
> about aliasing and other limitations of scanning!

Certainly NOT with me you haven't.  How come a drum scanner can scan at
10k/inch if film scanning is so limited?

> > Well, there's yet another problem.  You can only make a CCD (or CMOS)
> > "pixel" just so small, and you are limited also by size of the array.
> This
> > is a physics limitation.
> Dye clouds are subject to limitations of size as well.  This is a spurious
> argument.

It's important to understanding what is going on here.  It's really simple,
and why you are fighting it, I can't understand.

> > Hence, the Canon D30 is FAR better than a same or more sized cheapo
> digital
> > camera.
> And the technology used in today's base model computers was top
> of the line
> or
> didn't exist a year or two ago.

BZZT.  Wrong answer.  Entirely different issue.  We are talking about
sensors, which are analog data acquisition devices...and that is apples and
oranges compared to computer technology.  The limitations are entirely
different.  I described the limitations of digital camera sensors.  These
limitations are fact.

> I don't
> think
> anyone is doubting that film is doomed for the majority of
> consumers are we?
> Surely it's just a question of time?

That may be true, but it has nothing to do with the issues above.  General
consumers were happy with Polaroid pictures for God's sake!

> But meanwhile, I'll continue to try to get the most out of my scanner, and
> improve my skills at achieving a good result. :)

To get the most out of your scanner, I would suggest getting good a using
good films, exposing them accurately and developing them for low grain.
These are really key to getting good images out of scanners.


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.