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: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI



"Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> But a dye cloud is more than color.  It is ALSO shape and position.  Those
> characteristics (information) are NOT represented by color.

How is a randomly sized and shaped dye cloud a useful characteristic of
shape and position?  How is it more useful than a precise position in an
array?

> Yes, but increase it to what?  You would need to be able to scan the exact
> edges of every randomly placed dye cloud...it's about three orders of
> magnitude more information than is currently possible.

Now you're talking scanning, which I wasn't.  I was talking about
representing
an image with a pixel array, not the process of getting the image into the
array.
If you scan film, you're making the process a lot harder than other methods
of
digitally capturing an image.  We've already spent a lot of bandwidth
talking
about aliasing and other limitations of scanning!

> Well, there's yet another problem.  You can only make a CCD (or CMOS)
> "pixel" just so small, and you are limited also by size of the array.
This
> is a physics limitation.

Dye clouds are subject to limitations of size as well.  This is a spurious
argument.

> Hence, the Canon D30 is FAR better than a same or more sized cheapo
digital
> camera.

And the technology used in today's base model computers was top of the line
or
didn't exist a year or two ago.  When I was at university, people were
convinced
that physics severely limited the size of transistors and the speed at which
they
operated.  The first IBM PC ran at what, 4.77 MHz?  And now you can buy a
2GHz PIV?

If the market is there, the technology will be developed to meet the demand.
Absolutely I agree that Provia 100F and Reala in their own way can store
more
information in an image than a D30.  But look at how quickly the technology
has advanced to produce the D30.  The rate of improvement in digital imaging
is much greater than the rate of improvement in film technology.  I don't
think
anyone is doubting that film is doomed for the majority of consumers are we?
Surely it's just a question of time?

But meanwhile, I'll continue to try to get the most out of my scanner, and
improve my skills at achieving a good result. :)

Rob





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.