Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait
Of course, you are correct about that last figure for 8K, I didn't study
the whole chart when I was typing it, and the 6K isn't the correct ratio
either, now that I look at it. They may be a compromise toward 4x5"
(although the narrow dimension isn't wide enough) or another film ratio.
For instance, one Agfa model indicates the 35mm dimensions for 2K and 4K
as shown in the original posting. They then show dimensions for
120/220, 3.25 x 4.25, and 4x5" of:
2K at 2048 x 1536
4K at 4096 x 3072
Laurie Solomon wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I may have been misinformed with respect to LPI. I
> can accept and agree with your conclusions in the last two paragraphs. I am
> not sure that "an 8K image is 8192 x 6144 pixel" will be " exactly a 3:2
> ratio, which is also used for a 35mm film frame" only because in film
> recorder speak I think that there may be a differetiation between "an 8K
> image" and "8K" as it relates to the recorder hardware designation specs. I
> think that the "image pixel figures" you give are software generated and
> apply to a 8K film recorder using a 35mm CRT but would be different for one
> using a larger film format CRT. Moreover, a 4K film recorder would not be
> capable of an 8K image even if the software would be capable of showing such
> a setting; and there are, to the best of my knowledge, no 6K film recorders
> (an 8K film recorder may be capable of generating such an image if the
> software were set for that).
> Once again, I think that the literature and popular wisdom is very
> ambiguous, vague, and confusing when it comes to film recorders. Those who
> are in the know appear to have formed a secret society in which knowlege is
> passed on privately sort of like the craft of magic. :-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 3:09 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait
> Hi Laurie,
> Thanks for the rundown on your research on film recorders.
> You inspired me to dig up my file on film recorders. What I can fathom
> from the literature here, the "resolution" numbers translate to a round
> down of the total addressable pixels across the long side.
> What I show is a 2K image is 2048 x 1366 pixels
> a 3K image is 3072 x 2048 pixels
> a 4K image is 4096 x 2732 pixels
> a 6K image is 6144 x 4608 pixel
> an 8K image is 8192 x 6144 pixel
> These are an 8K image is 8192 x 6144 pixel.
> So, this is basically the number of pixels in the total image,
> regardless of the magnification involved.
> I don't think it directly relates measurable lines of resolution, but to
> addressable points on the screen, sort of like Epson printers have 2880
> x 720 addressable points per inch, but that doesn't indicate the
> resolution of the image.
Unsubscribe by mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or