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: 3 year wait



Date sent:              Wed, 8 May 2002 10:32:20 -0400
Send reply to:          filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
From:                   "Kapetanakis, Constantine" <KAPETAC@polaroid.com>
To:                     doogle@doogle.com
Subject:                [filmscanners] RE: 3 year wait

> At 4000 dpi you are at the edge of film resolution. You get absolutely
> nothing more by scanning at 8000 dpi for example. If you want to print a
> large image just do the resampling in photoshop instead of burdening your
> scanner. Anything higher than 4000 dpi is just marketing hype.

I tend to agree with that. I run film recorder, and in those terms, the 
"general" resolving
power of 35mm emulsions is referred to as "4K" (if the film recorder can do 
TRUE 4K -
many cheaper ones claim that, but can't for various reasons, whole 'nother 
subject).

"4K" is:
4096 x 2731 true pixels (apprx. 32MB TIFF file in 24bit, double that for 48bit) 
which
4000ppi at 36x24mm significantly exceeds.

Of course, higher the ppi capability of the scanner, more you can crop from the 
original
and still hit your target optimum resolution.





           Mac McDougald -- DOOGLE DIGITAL
  500 Prestwick Ridge Way # 39 - Knoxville, TN 37919
 doogle@doogle.com  865-540-1308  http://www.doogle.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.