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




"Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If I am not mistaken in one case you are taking a 900 x 900 pixel sample
from a 3000 x 2000 pixel (approximately) dimensioned image.  In the
other case, you are taking the same 900 x 900 pixel section from a 5080
x 5080 (or there about) pixel image, which is considerably less total
image information.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Exactly.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you are saying on a pixel per pixel basis (excluding resolution of
the total image) that the Bayer patterned digicam image looks cleaner
and "better" than the translated dye cloud (film) to squared pixels by
scanning, then you'll get no argument from me.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Exactly<G>. I was objecting to claims of the form ""my scanner produces 210
MP when your digital camera only produces 6MP".

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
  The digicam image is
"designed" for the square pixelled format, and the translation takes
place at the point the light hits the sensor, rather than going through
the whole translation process, going from light, to photon chemical
reactions to more (liquid) chemical reactions on randomly sized and
positioned "dots" (grain/dye clouds) then reformatted to fit square
pixels.  So you'll get no argument from me there.

The Bayer patterned image doesn't have the accuracy of color the film
will (at the same resolution) and the film is obviously still resolution
superior, even after scanning.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

The difference goes the other way if you look at film of the same area as
the digital sensor. A 15x22 mm area of film printed at A4 (a 14x
enlargement) is going to look pretty funky compared to a sharp 10D image.

<<<<<<<<<<<
Yes, once the digital cameras provide 4000 or 5000 ppi resolution, no
question, it will look better (even if the color still won't be as
accurate), but I think it's a way off financially.  A decent film camera
and some quality film still is a bit more affordable than 24 megapixel
sensored digicams.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The question is what the cutoff point is. It looks to me that 35mm film is
worth about 9MP, not 24MP. Most people comparing the 1Ds to 35mm film find
the 1Ds winning hands down. There is a question as to how much more
information a 5080 dpi scanner gets out of a 35mm frame than a 4000 dpi
scanner. I suspect that it's not enough of a difference to be significant.
(None of the Minolta 5400 scans of actual images I've seen showed
significant improvement over 4000 dpi scans, although the test chart images
look a lot better.)

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan

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