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



Austin wrote..
>..I DID stick to the
> ball...please point it out...I am interested.

I'm away from my normal PC right now, so I can't quote the lines that I felt 
were getting personal (a convenient cop-out, I know!), but comments like this:

'..but I really don't know what more I can explain...and I don't know how much 
more basic I can get...  Sigh.'

..are a bit of a put-down in my book.  Perhaps I am just the overly sensitive 
type, but I would be a bit offended if they were comments directed towards me.  
Anyway, back to the debate, which I hope isn't getting too off-topic..

> But why IS 9 larger than 4?  You didn't explain
> why. 

We have to some basic 'given's', otherwise nothing can be discussed... :-) 
 
> Saying a dye cloud has more information content
> than A pixel is NOT ambiguous at all, it's just
> a fact..

Yes, agreed.  But my (and I think Rob's) point is that fact is not of much 
importance unless you are heading for a useful conclusion, eg saying that 
'electronic sensors will never give higher resolution than film.'  There are 
many factors involved in that question, eg over what size area? (Why do we use 
6x7 instead of 35mm? - Because of those darned too-big dye clouds, that's why!) 
 And I'm concerned about recording the image, not dye clouds.  In the same way 
that we use larger format films, and smaller dye-clouds as methods to get 
better images, we can keep reducing the size of the 'pixels', and if we meet a 
physics limit (or more often an expense limit), then we can increase the area 
over which that image is recorded.  And that *doesn't* necessarily mean huge 
cameras/lenses, if you think laterally..

> I said that physical limitations prohibit
> sensors from being as small as dye
> clouds.

As above, this is only an issue if you are trying to match up your sensor with 
some pre-determined film size.

> AS I said, these sensors have to get
> light to them

Which can be bent, magnified, reflected, spread...

> and they have to have wires in and out of them

hmm.  Maybe using current technology they do..
:-)

Anyway, as soon as a decent *affordable* 8Mp or better digicam arrives, 
preferably with interchangable lenses and decent battery life, I'll be jumping 
ship and only dragging out the film scanner for the 'archives'..  I won't be 
pining for the days of dye-clouds..

mt

This message was sent through MyMail http://www.mymail.com.au





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.