ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












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

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

[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography



But a pixel is around 6um on a side, so grain is finer than a pixel.

R. Jackson wrote:
> On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
<snip>
  Look here:
>
> http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/Filmbasics/filmbasics.html
>
> See the 400x magnification? If that level of capture detail existed
> in your film scans and you had no issues with aliasing I think it
> would be pretty significant. The files will be enormous, though, and
> you'd have to really enjoy the artifacts of the medium to even
> bother. I'd bother, though. I imagine it will be another decade
> before that kind of technology is accessible to people for fine arts
> use in any practical sense, but I'll be at the head of the line.
>
> -Rob
>
>

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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.