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



I agree about the eventually part....but not yet.  I am talking about what is 
now, not what is theoretically
possible, and probable.  We essentially, are in agreement.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID photography, NYC

Rob Geraghty wrote:

> "SKID Photography" <skid@bway.net> wrote:
> > While I agree that the pixels will be 'smoother' because of the inkjet
> > dither pattern, film grain still contains/imparts more information (on a
> > one to one basis) than a pixel, not matter how it is dithered by the
> > printer.
>
> Why?  So far I've heard this claimed a number of times, but I've still
> heard nothing which backs it up.  I'm prepared to be convinced, but
> you haven't explained the facts behind the statement you make above.
>
> Are we talking about any theoretical pixel, or the average 24 bit pixel?
> If we're just talking 24bits per pixel, and 2700 or 4000dpi then
> absolutely the film contains more information. QED.
>
> But if the area represented by the pixel is similar to the area of the
> smallest dye cloud in the film, and the pixel has enough bits to
> represent colour, I can't see any reason why the film would
> contain any more useful information than the digital representation,
> or the why the digital image would be inherently "worse". :-7
>
> Everyone has been telling me that we will all inevitably end up using
> filmless systems.  What changed?  I know a digital image is only a
> representation of an analogue event of light, but an image on film
> is much the same - a representation with limits.  Eventually, the
> digital image will become as good or better than the film image
> according to market demands.
>
> I suspect this discussion is not really relevent to film scanning any more,
> other than to say that film scanning is a stopgap between film with
> chemical production of prints and digital imaging.  Eventually it will
> become redundant except for scanning historical material.  But we
> all know that, don't we? :-7
>
> Rob







 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.