Re: Digicam

[byard pidgeon <bluedove@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Take your own advice..."you would do well to read what is written". I did
not mention grain, in terms parodoxical or otherwise.
I admire your tenacity in a discussion, where you get an "A" but your social
skills are in need of improvement, so you get a "D".

on 06/12/2002 11:42 AM, Kennedy McEwen at rkm@kennedym.demon.co.uk wrote:

> In article <B92BE13C.2E2F%bluedove@ccountry.net>, byard pidgeon
> <bluedove@ccountry.net> writes
>> Gee, Kennedy...probably not...I think he put the film in the desktop
>> scanner, then kicked it around the room while it scanned.
>> 
> From the sounds of things, he might well have done!
> 
>> Has it ever occurred to you that the real world might not always act in
>> accord with your theoretical dogma?
>> 
In addition to learning a little of that science, you would do well to
> read what is written.  Clearly the operator either didn't have the skill
> or the facilities to match the MTF of the desktop scanner to the
> sampling density - a function which is readily controllable on many drum
> systems.  If he had then you would not have posted about the clearly
> visible paradox that a scan capable of resolving MORE grain actually
> produced LESS on the final image!

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