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 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, 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
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)?

Regards,

Austin

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