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

Austin Franklin wrote:
> But do they say ppi related to the recording output, and if so, is that the
> maximum, and when projecting onto larger film formats, obviously that "ppi"
> decreases?  Again, from what you show for figures, it looks to be that 4k or
> 8k refers only to the physical number pixels of the imaging device on the
> long side.  I don't believe it is meant to be ppi, since for the long side
> of a 35mm projection, it would be 4k/8k projected across ~1.4"...and
> therefore be ~2850ppi (for a 4k recorder obviously).  Now, the imaging

Yes, that's about right.

> device may in fact be 1" along the 4k/8k side, and how relevant is that
> really, compared to the output ppi (which is what we've been talking about I
> believe)?

My polaroid 7000 "does" 4K regardless of the size film (although in
truth, the 7000 only officially supports 35mm). For larger film, the
8K is recommended because the difference is noticeable when the 4K
points is spread out on a larger film.

Mike K.

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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.