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



> > 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.

- If you put a larger film back on recorder, and still only feed it
   a. 4K rez, no matter what the rez for the film recorder is set or
   b. larger file rez, but film recorder only 4K capable
then yes, you will have same pixel dimensions as for 35mm, simply spread out 
over
larger film area, and hence, lower overall resolution.

However, the way the scanning beam (flying spot) exposes the image onto film, 
this is
a far cry from "photographing a monitor".

> 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.

Again, you see that your first statement is very much correct:
"But recording to film is very much dependent on the quality of the Film 
Recorder
itself..."

And to echo that, must continue to state that there is little if any 
discernable diff on
MY film
recorder onto 35mm, whether
-fed a 4K file/run at 4K
-fed a 4K file/run at 8K
-fed an 8K file/run at 4K
-fed an 8K file/run at 8K

yet, there is a big diff onto 120 film, if NOT
-fed an 8K file/run at 8K
(I don't have a 120 back, but have examples from one using my recorder)

Hence my contention that for 35mm, assuming:
- you have 4096 x 2731 real pixels
- film recorder can truly image those pixels
That this 4K resolution, 11.1MegaPixels, is within a MP or two of actual 35mm 
film resoution (at
least as far as E-6 and C-41 films go).

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.