|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Phil.Lippincott" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 > > <email@example.com> 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.