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



Hi Laurie,

Sorry for the misappropriated quotes.  It was bad editing on my part.  I
was trying to respond to your questions about the several different
measures being used, but I fear I might have further confused the
matter, as I was trying to convert it all into ppi, rather than lpi.

Am I then incorrect in my thinking that the 4K figure for the
filmrecorder is in ppi?  I believe you are stating it is lpi, which
could well be correct.  I only worked with a film recorder twice, and
that was many years ago.  If that is the case, then your numbers would
make for more accuracy.

If your numbers are closer to the amounts film scanners claim for 4K,
then I really find it hard to accept that film maxes out at that resolution.

Hopefully, at least, I answered what the MP acronym stands for ;-)

Military Police?
Member of Parliament?
Mega-Pixel?
Mainly Playing?

Art

Laurie Solomon wrote:

> Alas Arthur, the quotes in your post are attributed to me; but they are not
> my words. Since I did not write them although I did raise some questions
> concerning the question of 4K RES used to define film recorder resolutions
> as referring to LPI and not ppi which would mean that the resolution in ppi
> would be 1.5 - 2 times less than 4K, I am not sure if your post is addressed
> to me since we apparently are saying the same thing be it LPI or line pairs
> or if the post is directed to others.
>
> The key practical point is that many if not most film recorders do not
> actually operate at 4K despite the written specs so their resolution in ppi
> is going to be far less than the 2000 ppi - 2666.66 ppi that it would be if
> the 4K lpi was an actual operating resolution. I understand how you derived
> your 2849 ppi figure; but my math says that to get a 4000 lpi line screen
> you would have to multiply by a factor of 1.4 (most printers suggest
> multiplying the ppi by a factor of 1.5 - 2.0 to derive the halftone line
> screen (lpi).
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.