Re: Digicam vs. Scanner resolutions

["Ernst Dinkla" <E.Dinkla@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phil.Lippincott" <phil.lippincott@worldnet.att.net>
To: <scan@leben.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 5:40 AM
Subject: Re: Digicam vs. Scanner resolutions


> 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.



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