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]

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

Austin wrote:
>Now that's an odd thing to do...claim a pixel has nothing to do with
>physics...  I don't know about your scanner, but mine is not Gnostic.

*sigh* As I tried to explain earlier, Austin, *you* are talking about scanner
pixels, and I am not.  That's why you can't see the point I was trying to

> Except for the fact that we are talking about film scanners,
> and the are a pixel can represent is limited by physics...

You were talking film scanners.  I wasn't.

> Yes, and it ONLY represents tonality, NO other characteristic
> at all is represented by a pixel.

No other characteristic is needed.  It's a component of an image.

> Which is where the physical characteristics come in play.
> There are physical limitations as to how many pixels you
> can "practically" use in a scanning system.  You can't
> just make a sensor of infinite density (or infinite size
> and use optics), since these bring up physical limitations.
> These are just facts of physics, and why physics is involved.

Absolutely.  It wouldn't be practical or cost effective to do so.  I never
claimed it was.  The point I was trying to make (a long time ago, and it
got lost in the confusion) was that digital image capture technology will
advance to the point where there's no reason to use film.

> this...and NO, because of physical limitations on sensor
> element sizes (that are NOT the same as faster processors,
> larger memory etc...those aren't analog sensors, so advances
> in those areas are not entirely applicable to advances in
> digital imaging sensors in this case) you can not just
> "increase the resolution of the grid".

Does your eye have more sensors than any CCD in existence today?  It translates
light into electrical impulses.  Just because current technology has certain
limits, it doesn't mean that those limits are absolute as far as solving
the problem is concerned.  It might be necessary to take a totally different
approach.  The reason I mentioned changes in CPU speed was its relationship
to future technology.  Back in 1983 when I was using an Apple IIe, nobody
had any idea how to make a practical gigahertz microprocessor.  Right now
it may be that nobody knows how to make a practical 12Mpix CCD (or whatever
number of pixels people decide they need).  But I'm convinced that someone
will make a 12 megapixel (pick a number) image capture device if the demand
is there, and it can be done profitably.

The camera manufacturers have started falling over each other trying to
make the latest and greatest digital cameras.  That's exactly what was needed
for the technology to accelerate.  Consumer level marketing.  The computer
industry didn't really take off until computers became a consumer item.


Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.