Thank you. Yor remarks have help clear up a number of points of confusion
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 11:09 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait
> > 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.
> Well, I'm the guy who claims that "4K", and that's a film
> recorder term, is roughly
> equivalent to 35mm film rez. See my follow that I just sent
> before this.
> > >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)?
> Quick film recording factoids:
> - there are two types, CRT with flying spot scanning (similar
> to the technology used for
> CRT digital printing onto photo paper, which is about the
> highest quality digital to paper
> printing) and LVT ("light valve technology"), which is
> considered the highest quality film
> - my Lasergraphics LFR Mark III DPM is of the former variety.
> The quality of CRT film
> recorders, especially in terms of extended density ranges,
> has increased exponetially
> within the last 5 years or so and certain models such as mine
> are virtually
> indistinguishable form LVT models. It's my contention that
> the reason for this is that
> either technology now essentially acheives the practical
> limits of film resolution,
> assuming it is fed the appropriate number of quality pixels
> for the film size being
> imaged. To put this in context cost wise, my model cost $17K
> just about 5 years ago.
> It is now the lowest level pro model being offered and
> retails for about $12.5K. Pricing
> does not fall as rapidly as with other digital imaging
> devices for the obvious reason that
> film recorders are not "everybody has one" devices, so
> supply/demand, all that.
> - most film recorders have claimed "2K-4K" just about since
> their inception, but there's
> a huge variance in that claim. Internal hardware, which I
> don't pretend to understand,
> may be such that pixels are "smeared" line by line, giving
> much less resolution. Also,
> "blooming", just as with some scanners, can be present. You
> see this even with
> simple text on PowerPoint output from many "4K" film
> recorders, such as under $10K
> models like the Polaroid Palettes and Agfa Qxx series that
> many labs used to (and
> still) use. Also, many film recorders are now optimized for
> digital photographic images,
> rather than vector originals and it makes a big diff in
> color, density, and contrast
> When I say "4K", it means an image of 4096 x 2731, nothing more.
> My film recorder can do 4K or 8K resolution.
> There is no difference in the above image, shot at 4 or 8K,
> because the pixels aren't
> there for the 8K to have an effect.
> Further, if I take an 8K image (8192 x 5461 pixels) and image
> at 4K and 8K, there is
> ALSO no discernable difference, the reason being, by my
> contention, that true 4K
> imaging is already utilizing the resolution capabilities of
> 35mm films, at least the ones
> that I use.
> The 8K pixel size and the 8K film recorder capability IS,
> however, necessary for the
> same quality onto 120 film. I don't do 120, as the film back
> costs $6K!, and have never
> found a clientele substantial enough to justify the expenditure.
> And 4x5 film is generally maximized, or at least
> approximated, by 16K resolution.
> One irony is that most film recorder companies will sell you
> a 4x5 back for even a 4K
> model film recorder, which of course makes some very poor
> 4x5" chromes :-)
> > 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?]
> Yes, standard abbreviation: MP=MegaPixels. 1 MP = 1 million
> total pixels.
> In the discussion above 4096x2731 = 11,186,176 million
> pixels, or 11.1MP
> Yep, it's a confusing mess.
> I'm on no soapbox about anything in particular. Just think
> that for all practical
> purposes, right around 12MP images, if those 12 million
> pixels are of sufficient quality,
> is where 35mm film becomes a true niche product.
> Mac McDougald -- DOOGLE DIGITAL
> 500 Prestwick Ridge Way # 39 - Knoxville, TN 37919
> firstname.lastname@example.org 865-540-1308 http://www.doogle.com
> Unsubscribe by mail to email@example.com, with
> 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the
> message title or body
Unsubscribe by mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or