Re: Digicam vs. Scanner resolutions

["Phil.Lippincott" <phil.lippincott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Kennedy,
      I'm sorry this isn't an academic discussion.  Aztek has clients doing bill
boards from crops within 35mm.  No there is no visible grain on the print I
referred to. Drum scanners do not use an optics lens to see or reproduce images.
The concept is like a laser spot taking each individual pixel as round (not
square) individual and controllible samples.  Because the spot is consolable
independently of dpi the grain is manageable also.  By the way 8000 3 micron spots
is approximately inch. The smallest spot I ever measured on a CCD scanner with
lenses was 6 micron or about 4000 dpi equivalent spot. I included this print as
one example of scan to print file sizes at my DIMA PMA 2002 Scanning Technology
Round Up presentation at Orlando in March.   These kinds of scans are being
performed by the thousands daily at hundreds of Labs and high photographer studio
equipped with suitable scanners.
      I would be happy to try to recommend somewhere for you to see this in action
if you would email  off the list your location.
Best Regars,
Phil Lippincott
www.aztek.com


Kennedy McEwen wrote:

> In article <3D0424F6.921929ED@worldnet.att.net>, Phil.Lippincott
> <phil.lippincott@worldnet.att.net> writes
> >Hi Kennedy
> >   As I previously mentioned Ektachrome E100SV has grain that can be
> >optically scanned at 8000 dpi without a problem.  I believe all of the newest
> >formulation films from Kodak and Fuji may use the newer "T structure" or
> >similar random grain technology to that patented by Agfa a few years ago.
> >Kodak has had a number of new patents approved also for new dye formulations
> >that are better suited for scanning.  This is where Portra came from VPS
> >also.  In my testing of scanners no scanner has had an optical visible
> >resolution better than 8000 dpi equivalent. Most 5600 optical specified
> >scanners really have 3500 or less.  The CCD scanners lack of quality gives
> >people the perception that this all the film has but it's not true.  Most
> >film is better than most scanners and most professional scanners are better
> >than digi cams.  Also slow scan scan backs are nothing more than relocatible
> >small CCD scanners themselves.
> >
> Phil,
>    what you are confirming is that your 150in print is far from perfect,
> although it may indeed be as good as any chemically produced print of
> the same size.  Your original statement claimed a grain free image, now
> you are suggesting that the grain is optically scanned - which means, as
> I suspected, that you are scanning well beyond the resolution capability
> of the image.
>
> The fact remains that the film does not have enough resolution (and
> neither do most optics) to produce a 100x magnification without the
> resolution limitations being visible to the naked eye.  Furthermore, a
> 150in print from an 8000ppi scan results in a pixel resolution on paper
> which is easily visible.   Although filtering at the printer may avoid
> pixelation itself, even a perfectly sharp original would be visible less
> than sharp when printed at that resolution - and you don't have a
> perfectly sharp original.
>
> As I said before, your 150in print may well look impressive, but it
> cannot be perfect and, for example, comparison with a similar sized
> print from a larger format source would knock spots off it in the
> resolution stakes.
> --
> Kennedy
>

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.