[filmscanners] Re: Film Recorders (3 year wait)

["Op's" <martin@wollongong.apana.org.au>]

Of film recorders yes ---  4K is sort of 4K  and the definition does depend on 
the size of
the tube and quality of the printer etc. etc......

Having said that an old Polaroid 5000 CI ? 4K or a Mirus Galleria 5K  do not 
give the
results of newer printers  these have about a 2.5" tube. The Polaroid Pallette 
8K  and the
4K printers now have a 7" tube.which allows better definition ( don't know what 
the tube
size is for the LFR).

I was scanning 2700 off the LS2000 which gave a file size 28M tif  which 
interpolated up to
4032x2689 about 32M  gave near the results of the original slide. Now scanning 
at 4800 dpi
the results at 4K are better. If I let my printer (an 8K Polaroid)  use the 
full scan size
which is near 6444x4284 (79M) they still show improvement over the 4K print.

IMO you will not determine the resolution of film by printing from a film 
printer there are
too many other factors involved.

Rob

doogle@doogle.com wrote:

> > > And that is simply the following:
> > > - 4096 x 2731 good scan from Ektachrome output back to film at 4K rez
> >
> > Actually, that's what I'm having a "problem" with...calling that 4k rez...
> > (which is what the gist of my involvement in this discussion was about,
> > trying to understand what it meant, and why on earth anyone would call it
> > that ;-).  I know what you mean by it, that the long side of the 35mm frame
> > is 4k...but that isn't the "language" that scanners (printers etc.) are
> > spoken about in, but it appears that film recorders have their own
> > definition of what "4k" means.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body