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

My product literature indicates, as you state, that the numbers are
pixels, period.  It is a fixed number of addressable points regardless
of the film size.


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, 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 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.