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



> 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

Well, I'll leave the math and theory to you.
And you may well be spot on correct.

All I can claim is the empiricism of what my eyes observe (and not just mine).

And that is simply the following:
- 4096 x 2731 good scan from Ektachrome output back to film at 4K rez is
indistinguishable from the original, projected side by side at approx 6 feet 
wide. (I have
3 projector stacker, so can see at same time).
- same scanned from Tmax 100, and both orig neg and film recorder output neg 
printed
photographically to 10 x 6.6 inches are indistinguishable.

And before you ask, no, I don't have the drum scanned images/slides/negs/prints 
in
my possession anymore. Came about as a test for persnickety client, who reached
same conclusion as myself regarding the above observations.

And yet, consistent with *my* "science", can visually see that "almost" at that 
level
with 2700ppi scanning and have no doubt will be when I update to 4000ppi 35mm
scanner (actually, more likely, MF model) ere long. The drum scan test was done
close to 4 years ago now and of course scanner technology has reduced the diff 
from
drum to "personal" scanner to near nil.

Which tells me that for the majority of usage, ~12 MP, assuming those pixels 
are "up
to snuff", is the *practical" equivalent of 35mm film.

I'm sure there are many scientific applications that benefit from using film; 
how long
that continues is unknown though; the technology leaps quicker than *I* can 
predict.
We may be only a decade away (or less) from some do-all bio-engineered crystal 
that
does everything we do now with phone/puter/cam/projection and fits on a 
keychain. Or
more likely, embedded under skin in neural complex somewhere convenient :-)

Mac
           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.