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: 35mm filmscanner choice




> If a manufacturer was to list an lpi speck using the same method they
> list dpi specks, they would simply be i/2 the dpi or ppi number.

"half" was what I was expecting (for the ideal case, as it were), though I
was wondering whether it is trickier than that, because resolution in
optical terms is about distinguishing a pair (or pairs) of black lines, as
far as I can tell.  How well one has to distinguish these lines is just one
question I could ask, but won't.

> I do
> not believe any CCD scanner can take this theoretical and bring it into
> reality.
>
> That also explains why the two Nikons (for example) show little
> difference in resolution when tested at output, in spite of about a 35%
> increase in the number of sensor elements per inch.  There appear to be
> other matters than the sensor density in terms of reaching limitations
> in desktop scanners.

A while back on this list there was a discussion about why teh Nikons use so
many elements in the lenses.  One thought occurred to me: maybe the 4000 and
40 share a lens.  And maybe, gulp, this lens is also used in the 8000.  It
would certainly keep costs down...

Jawed




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.