[filmscanners] RE: 3 year wait

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> > Sigh.  You didn't understand my point.  Calling something a "4k
> standard"
> > when it's only ~2700ppi is not right in my book.
>
> "4K" simply means 4000 (and 96) pixels across the 36mm film chip.
> Actually,
> 2889.9ppi.

Yes, that's my point, but you're not getting the significance of it I guess.

> > > I'd say that 11-12MP of true pixel info IS pretty
> > > much what (Ektachrome,
> > > at least) film can resolve.
>
> > I certainly disagree with that, and have easily proven differently.
>
> If you're talking as per digicams, as in your comments below, I
> agree. But only
> because digicams aren't cranking true and accurate pixels (yet).

I have a scanning digital camera back that is 7k x 7k (6x6 format), and it
IS true pixels, it isn't even up to film quality.  I also have a scanning
digital camera that gives 9M pixels (real true full color pixels), and it
also isn't near as good as a decent film can be.

> > > And, btw, 4K at the pixel dimensions stated above is over 11
> > > million pixels.
> > > I think that 11MP is the "holy grail" of digicam sensors to
> > > "equal" 35mm film for most
> > > all intents and purposes.
> >
> > Yeah, but it isn't even close, and that's a whole other ball game.  It
> > depends on the film, development, exposure etc.  Film has FAR FAR more
> > usable information than 11M pixels.
>
> I can only speak of the films I have personally output and
> observed, those being:
> Tmax 100,

T-Max 100 has a resolution rating of around 200 line pair/mm, that's over
10k samples per inch, and would be a file of APPROXIMATELY FOR EXAMPLE SAKE
(since you are being anal about arithmetic ;-) ~10k x ~15k or ~150M pixels.

Austin

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