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:

> Hi Rob,
>
> > > > Am I then incorrect in my thinking that the 4K figure for the
> > > > filmrecorder is in ppi?
> > >
> > > It appears to me that the 4k figure for the filmrecorder is
> > simply the size
> > > of the sensor,
> >
> > Its not a sensor its a CRT...
>
> Yes, you're right.  I didn't think about that when I wrote it, I'm so used
> to talking about input devices (as this is a filmscanner list ;-), not
> output devices, and I do know it's not a sensor.
>
> > The image is rasterized into its components - this rasterization
> > can be 4K (or smaller)
> > (4032x2689)  to  8K ( 8192x5461)  ppi  that's Polaroids figures.
>
> But do they say ppi related to the recording output,

No sorry that should be overall pixels.

If you output through a PS plug in you must make sure that outputting  - i.e.   
to 4K is
within 4032x2689 on either side. If you don't then it will print small - or 
bigger over
print.  -  that's Polaroid Plugin.



> and if so, is that the
> maximum, and when projecting onto larger film formats, obviously that "ppi"
> decreases?

You change the backs for other formats which alters the tube /back distance. 
yes all you are
doing is photographing a monitor.


> 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.

Yes


> 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).

that's correct


> Now, the imaging
> 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)?
>

When its broken down like this its only giving 2850ppi - at 4K   or  5650ppi  
at 8K

There were some other figures off the old Rasterplus programme but I can't find 
them now.-
these were much lower then the ppi and I don't think they were in ppi terms.

But recording to film is very much dependent on the quality of the Film 
Recorder itself, as
I have mentioned before, and not a true indication of the films resolving 
ability or what we
scan at. I do know that the better the scan there is much more information 
delivered to the
recorder and the quality improves - and the best resolution on my printer is 
8192 pixels
across any film format.

I have noticed even printing at 7K (~5000dpi) , which I can now scan optically, 
 is better
than 4K from a 2700 dpi scan.

Rob








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