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



Date sent:              Sun, 12 May 2002 20:52:28 -0400
Send reply to:          filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
From:                   "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
To:                     doogle@doogle.com
Subject:                [filmscanners] RE: 3 year wait

> Hi Rob,
>
> > > > Am I then incorrect in my thinking that the 4K figure for the
> > > > filmrecorder is in ppi?

No, it's not 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?

See below.
4 K optimum file size run at 4K settings
and
8K optimum file size run at 8K settings
both have effective ppi ON the output film area of just under 3000ppi.


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

The effective ppi would be relevant to the output medium, ie the film size.
My Lasergraphics Mark III DPM at 4K:
4096 x 3362 (addressable) or 4096 x 2731 in 35mm proportions: slightly under 
3000ppi
onto 35mm film
Bout the same ppi if going up to 8K pixel settings and running at 8K:
8192x6724 (addressable)

Mac



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