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: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)



At 08:47 PM 6/15/2001 +0000, you wrote:
>OK, did I miss something significant here, or did the subject just get 
>changed? I'm *assuming* that "a resolution of 75 lp/mm" refers to 75 lines 
>per milimeter--in which case the "/" is redundant. But of course, film has 
>no lines per anything, it just "is".  Measurable, of course, but any 
>"lines" are artificial.

Someone else has already mentioned that lp = "line pairs".

Resolution is tested using special targets that contain sets of lines at 
increasing density. The target is photographed (scanned, whatever) and the 
result is evaluated. The set with the highest number of line pairs per 
millimeter in which you can actually see that the lines are separate 
determines your resolution. It is, of course, an artificial measurement, in 
that, as you imply, an actual scene doesn't have "lines". That's why the 
number is often referred to as the "theoretical resolution" of a lens, 
camera, scanner, or whatever is being tested. It does have a relationship 
to actual picture taking; you would expect a lens, say, that has a higher 
theoretical resolution than another lens to actually take sharper 
pictures--and it really does, all other things being equal. Of course, the 
difference may be too small to see with the naked eye if the difference in 
theoretical resolution is too small. That's because the eyeball also has a 
theoretical resolution.

Stan
=======================================
Photography by Stan McQueen: http://www.smcqueen.com




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.