|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
In article <3D057114.FCDF73FD@worldnet.att.net>, Phil.Lippincott <email@example.com> writes >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. You still don't get it do you? Resolution, and neither GRAIN nor SCAN QUALITY, is the issue with your claim! I don't think I have even mentioned grain other than to address the issues on that topic raised by other contributors to the thread. From the start my concern has been resolution, as determined by the film and optic MTFs - and assumed that the scanner MTF is controlled to match the sampling density and therefore less of an issue. As mentioned several times already by myself and others, resolution is not determined solely by film grain and, indeed, granularity is only a very rough guide to the resolving capability of a particular film. Someone else even posted figures for granularity and resolution of Provia and Velvia which support that view. There simply is not enough IMAGE resolution recorded on film for a 150in print from a 35mm frame to appear sharp at close inspection, as you claimed - that is not academic, it is just a fact of life. I am sure that Kodak would love to hear that you have recovered far more resolution from Ektachrome than it is possible of supporting - and they would jump at the chance of providing evidence which would knock Fuji from the resolution pinnacle. Similarly, scanning at 8000ppi and reproducing at 150in results in a pixel resolution on paper of only 80ppi - and anyone can examine what that looks like under close inspection on a small to medium scale. Even taking measures to reduce pixelation visibility the result is much softer than what is typically regarded as pin sharp. You made the claim of a perfect image at that size right up to the closest viewing conditions and that is what I have taken issue with because, whilst impressive, the limited resolution means it is far from perfect. A comparison with an image from a large format, or even a lower magnification from a 35mm frame will make the poorer resolution obvious by yielding a much sharper result. > Drum scanners do not use an optics lens to see or reproduce images. I am fairly familiar with how drum scanners operate and how grain is controlled by their relative merits compared to CCD scanners, and have seen many examples of scans from them, as well as discussing how some of the grain control features of drum scanners can be approximated by CCD systems on this list. None of that changes the situation regarding image resolution. There simply isn't any resolution on the film image to recover, whether grain is present or not. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed. Python Philosophers - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.