[filmscanners] RE: 3 year wait

["Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

In danger of getting in over my head, I wish to jump into this debate with a
question.  Unforutnately, in the give and take of this discussion, I have
lost track of who said what when and to whom I should be addressing my
question.  So I am just going to use this post to piggy back my question on.

>From what I have read, heard, and seen 4K" is nominally the minimum stated
guality film recorder model (although not usually an accurrate reflection of
the capability which is usually much less( for 35mm format films with 8K"
and "16K" representing the middle and high end capacities for film recorders
for all film formats; but do not thess figures represent linescreens (lpi)
and not pixels (ppi), dots (dpi), or samples (spi)?  And if that is the
case, does not this figure represent from 1.5 to 2 times the ppi, dpi, or
spi (whatever one wants to call it)?

I ask not to further an argument but for clarification.  While others may
not be confused by the switching back and forth between inchs and mm as the
lineal standard when throwing out and comparing specifications or by the
equating of lip and pixels, I am and could use additional clarification with
respect to some of the content of some of the statements as exemplified by
the list below:

>"4K" simply means 4000 (and 96) pixels across the 36mm film chip.
> Actually, 2889.9ppi.

> I'd say that 11-12MP of true pixel info IS pretty
> much what (Ektachrome,
> at least) film can resolve.
[What is a MP and is that a standard abbreviation?]

>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


-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 8:55 AM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 3 year wait



> > 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

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