ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: Understanding dpi



Image quality is a multi-faceted subjective thing that cannot be measured in
quantitative terms which is why it is never refered to on spec sheets.
Obviously a optical 4000spi scanner will be sharper and have higher
resoution than a scanner that is capable of only optical resolutions of less
than 4000 spi, all other things being kept equal and constant; but
resolution and sharpness is only one aspect of quality with respect to the
scanner's capture ability.  However, sharpness and resolution per se are not
really all that important if one is outputting to the web or to prints that
are small wallet and snapshot size since the size and means of electronic
presentation often will mask any lack of sharpness and resolution and
provide the appearance of being sharper and having more resolution than it
objectively has.

Part of the reason 35mm film scanners have increased in their optical
resolution capabilities is because the size of the 35mm film frame is
typically enlarged in size significantly as compared to medium and large
format films as well as most reflective printed materials that are scanned
on flatbeds.  By being able to scan at optical resolutions of 4000 spi, the
capture can be resized to about 8 times its original size and still maintain
an acceptible optical resolution without requiring any interpolation.

filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
> Laurie Solomon wrote:
>  >
>  >I think that he was asking more about if this causes an increase in
>  the >image size and not the file size; but I could be wrong.
>
> Yes I was talking about image size. All I really wanted to know was
> if a 4000ppi scanner was capable of producing a better outputted
> image quality than one at only half the ppi? All other things being
> equal, including image size. I have a little $300 Scan Dual III right
> now & I don't need large images (just 400 x 600 pixels), but I would
> like a sharper image. Would a 4000-5000ppi ($1000-$2000) scanner be
> able to do that with the same 400 x 600 pixel output image size?
> Specs never seem to talk about image quality, only ppi.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate)
> in the message title or body
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04

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