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: Pixels and Prints


> >>>>>>>>>>
> Comparing digicam pixels to scanner pixels is misleading because scanner
> pixels are
> second-generation--4000 scanner pixels=2700 digicam pixels seems
> empirically
> like a good
> approximation, but I don't have research to prove this.
> <<<<<<<<<<<

So what if it's second generation?  Unless you can analyze the fidelity of
it to make claims from, that's simply an argument that has no teeth.

Fact is, digicam pixels have some %66 of the red, %66 of the blue and %50 of
the green data interpolated.  Scanned film data does not.  It has all three
color values as original information.  So, second generation or not, the
fidelity (which is what is important) of the data from scanned film far
outweighs digicam data of the same "resolution".

How good the scanned data is, depends a lot on how good the original film
image is, as well as how good the scanner/operator is.  Not all scanners
scan 4000 PPI the same.

Even if you recorded Ozzie live with your 8 track tape recorder, my nth
generation CD will have a far higher fidelity.



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.