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



Hi David,

> Because that's a different question. Someone argued that "scanners produce
> better quality pixels because they measure all RGB", and I'm pointing out
> that this is wrong because scanned pixels are, in fact, worse than digital
> camera pixels.

It's not wrong.  If you are talking image fidelity, then it depends on what
aspect of image fidelity is more important to you.  CLEARLY the scanned
pixel has higher color fidelity...and it may in fact have higher image
detail fidelity as well...  Even if the digicam image is "sharper",
sharpness may not mean higher image fidelity.

> so the "interpolated pixels" cheap
> shot is just
> that, a cheap shot.

It's not a cheap shot, it's a fact, like it or not.

> If you consider the "minimum dpi for acceptable print" to be a measure of
> (the inverse of) an imaging technology's pixel quality, that raises the
> question of what is the parameter that limits that minimum dpi. It may be
> that it's chrominance resolution that limits dSLR images and luminance
> resolution that limits scanned image.

You may very well be correct, I'd have to think about it.

> Again, I'm not the one comparing pixel-for-pixel;

Me either...but someone brought it up, and I believe it's a useless
comparison, as pixels have no relative dimension between images.

> and
> arguing that you have to downsample scanned images to get
> comparable pixels
> as measured by equivalent print quality.

I agree.

> My best estimate is that 4000 dpi scans of Fuji 100F films downsampled to
> 2400 dpi turn into close to 10D quality.

But...that's what I say is simply wrong, as a general statement.  You MAY
have an example that shows that as "true", but that doesn't make it hold
true for every example, variables being development, scanner and scanner
operator.

> There are lots of people who come up with 9MP or so as
> the "digital equivalent" of 35.

And there's a lot who come up with 16M, and 24M and 96M etc.  It just isn't
as "simple" as assigning a number.  It's like saying, as a general
statement, a Range Rover is better than a Porsche...in some aspects, yes, in
some no, and it very much so depends on what aspect of an aspect is
important to you.

Regards,

Austin

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