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: Film resolution - was: Re: 3 year wait

David writes:

> But, unless I'm misunderstanding what you
> are trying to say, this is wrong by at least
> a factor of three and in practice a factor of 6.

There isn't any magic number at which all artifacts disappear.  They never
disappear completely.  That's the drawback to digital.

> It turns out that even 3 pixels/mm is pretty
> poor, but that 6 pixels/mm is adequate.

See: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/sampling1.html

The 6 p/mm shows banding, too, but the bands are closer together and far
less obvious.

The exact number that would be "adequate" would depend on the application.
In practice, scenes that show artifacts at the Nyquist frequency or above
are relatively rare.

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.