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:            Fri, 10 May 2002 15:06:51 -0400
> Send reply to:        filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> From:                 "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
> To:                   doogle@doogle.com
> Subject:              [filmscanners] RE: 3 year wait
>
> >
> > > If
> > > you wanted to scan at 8K
> > > rez, then you'd have 5461 square maximum necessary, again, the
> > > short side of the
> > > 120 film. However, your 8K file, run on my recorder at either 4K
> > > or 8K capability *on
> > > 35mm film* will not look any different on output (at least to
> > > your eye - perhaps there
> > > are "measurable" diffs, I dunno). That's why I say that the
> > > apparant resolving power of
> > > 35mm film is reached at the 4096 x 2731 pixel count (using exact
> > > 35mm proportions).
> >
> > I don't believe you can base your conclusion on the data you have (I thought
> > about that on an errand I just ran).  It could very well be the recorder,
> > for what ever reason, is not able to output 8k on a 35mm short side "well".
> > That doesn't mean it's limited by the film, but limited by the recorder.  It
> > could be, for many reasons, optics, vibration, imaging technology...I don't
> > know, but I would not draw the same conclusion you have.
> >
> > Again, thanks for the discussion on film recorders, an area I previously
> > knew not much about.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
>
> I'll leave you with one other thing that doesn't quite jive - and surprised 
>you didn't
> latch onto it ! :-)
>
> Let's assume that just for argument that the film recorder def of 4K (4096 x 
>2731) is the
> practical limit of 35mm film.
>
> The 8K spec they give (8192 x 5462) doesn't quite add up.
> 2731 short side for 35mm (2.4cm)
> 5462 short side (or square in case of 'blad): ( 6cm)
> 6cm is more than twice 2.4, so the 120 is NOT getting same pixel density fed 
>to it per
> area as the 35mm. This a limitation of CRT/flying spot scanning mechanism in 
>film
> recorders, that they are all in multiples of 2/4/8/16 K? I dunno, and not 
>having the 120
> back (or currently 120 film scanner), am unable to test for myself.
>
> Mac

Addendum: I was referring to some old spec sheet:
Actually the ADDRESSABLE resolution are:
4K: 4000 lines (4096 x 3362 addressable pixels)
8K: 8000 lines ( 8192 x 6724 addressable pixels)

Which is essentially 8x10 proportions.

So if the image is to size to the short size of the film, either 35mm or 120, 
then the second rez
number IS higher, and jives better.

I've just always told clients, assuming they have the option with real original 
pixels, to make
their long side of image 4096 pixels for 35mm and everything's been hunky dory. 
Btw,
surprising how good even a 8-10MB TIFF can look, even though far from optimum.

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.