Filmscanners mailing list archive (email@example.com)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
I agree about the eventually part....but not yet. I am talking about what is
now, not what is theoretically
possible, and probable. We essentially, are in agreement.
partner, SKID photography, NYC
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> "SKID Photography" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > While I agree that the pixels will be 'smoother' because of the inkjet
> > dither pattern, film grain still contains/imparts more information (on a
> > one to one basis) than a pixel, not matter how it is dithered by the
> > printer.
> Why? So far I've heard this claimed a number of times, but I've still
> heard nothing which backs it up. I'm prepared to be convinced, but
> you haven't explained the facts behind the statement you make above.
> Are we talking about any theoretical pixel, or the average 24 bit pixel?
> If we're just talking 24bits per pixel, and 2700 or 4000dpi then
> absolutely the film contains more information. QED.
> But if the area represented by the pixel is similar to the area of the
> smallest dye cloud in the film, and the pixel has enough bits to
> represent colour, I can't see any reason why the film would
> contain any more useful information than the digital representation,
> or the why the digital image would be inherently "worse". :-7
> Everyone has been telling me that we will all inevitably end up using
> filmless systems. What changed? I know a digital image is only a
> representation of an analogue event of light, but an image on film
> is much the same - a representation with limits. Eventually, the
> digital image will become as good or better than the film image
> according to market demands.
> I suspect this discussion is not really relevent to film scanning any more,
> other than to say that film scanning is a stopgap between film with
> chemical production of prints and digital imaging. Eventually it will
> become redundant except for scanning historical material. But we
> all know that, don't we? :-7