Thank you. Yor remarks have help clear up a number of points of confusion for me.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 11:09 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait > > > > In danger of getting in over my head, I wish to jump into > this debate with a > > question. Unforutnately, in the give and take of this > discussion, I have > > lost track of who said what when and to whom I should be > addressing my > > question. So I am just going to use this post to piggy > back my question on. > > Well, I'm the guy who claims that "4K", and that's a film > recorder term, is roughly > equivalent to 35mm film rez. See my follow that I just sent > before this. > > > >From what I have read, heard, and seen 4K" is nominally > the minimum stated > > guality film recorder model (although not usually an > accurrate reflection of > > the capability which is usually much less( for 35mm format > films with 8K" > > and "16K" representing the middle and high end capacities > for film recorders > > for all film formats; but do not thess figures represent > linescreens (lpi) > > and not pixels (ppi), dots (dpi), or samples (spi)? And if > that is the > > case, does not this figure represent from 1.5 to 2 times > the ppi, dpi, or > > spi (whatever one wants to call it)? > > Quick film recording factoids: > - there are two types, CRT with flying spot scanning (similar > to the technology used for > CRT digital printing onto photo paper, which is about the > highest quality digital to paper > printing) and LVT ("light valve technology"), which is > considered the highest quality film > recording. > - my Lasergraphics LFR Mark III DPM is of the former variety. > The quality of CRT film > recorders, especially in terms of extended density ranges, > has increased exponetially > within the last 5 years or so and certain models such as mine > are virtually > indistinguishable form LVT models. It's my contention that > the reason for this is that > either technology now essentially acheives the practical > limits of film resolution, > assuming it is fed the appropriate number of quality pixels > for the film size being > imaged. To put this in context cost wise, my model cost $17K > just about 5 years ago. > It is now the lowest level pro model being offered and > retails for about $12.5K. Pricing > does not fall as rapidly as with other digital imaging > devices for the obvious reason that > film recorders are not "everybody has one" devices, so > supply/demand, all that. > - most film recorders have claimed "2K-4K" just about since > their inception, but there's > a huge variance in that claim. Internal hardware, which I > don't pretend to understand, > may be such that pixels are "smeared" line by line, giving > much less resolution. Also, > "blooming", just as with some scanners, can be present. You > see this even with > simple text on PowerPoint output from many "4K" film > recorders, such as under $10K > models like the Polaroid Palettes and Agfa Qxx series that > many labs used to (and > still) use. Also, many film recorders are now optimized for > digital photographic images, > rather than vector originals and it makes a big diff in > color, density, and contrast > gradations. > > When I say "4K", it means an image of 4096 x 2731, nothing more. > My film recorder can do 4K or 8K resolution. > There is no difference in the above image, shot at 4 or 8K, > because the pixels aren't > there for the 8K to have an effect. > Further, if I take an 8K image (8192 x 5461 pixels) and image > at 4K and 8K, there is > ALSO no discernable difference, the reason being, by my > contention, that true 4K > imaging is already utilizing the resolution capabilities of > 35mm films, at least the ones > that I use. > The 8K pixel size and the 8K film recorder capability IS, > however, necessary for the > same quality onto 120 film. I don't do 120, as the film back > costs $6K!, and have never > found a clientele substantial enough to justify the expenditure. > > And 4x5 film is generally maximized, or at least > approximated, by 16K resolution. > > One irony is that most film recorder companies will sell you > a 4x5 back for even a 4K > model film recorder, which of course makes some very poor > 4x5" chromes :-) > > > I ask not to further an argument but for clarification. > While others may > > not be confused by the switching back and forth between > inchs and mm as the > > lineal standard when throwing out and comparing > specifications or by the > > equating of lip and pixels, I am and could use additional > clarification with > > respect to some of the content of some of the statements as > exemplified by > > the list below: > > > > >"4K" simply means 4000 (and 96) pixels across the 36mm film chip. > > > Actually, 2889.9ppi. > > > > > I'd say that 11-12MP of true pixel info IS pretty > > > much what (Ektachrome, > > > at least) film can resolve. > > [What is a MP and is that a standard abbreviation?] > > Yes, standard abbreviation: MP=MegaPixels. 1 MP = 1 million > total pixels. > In the discussion above 4096x2731 = 11,186,176 million > pixels, or 11.1MP > > Yep, it's a confusing mess. > I'm on no soapbox about anything in particular. Just think > that for all practical > purposes, right around 12MP images, if those 12 million > pixels are of sufficient quality, > is where 35mm film becomes a true niche product. > > Mac > ------ > Mac McDougald -- DOOGLE DIGITAL > 500 Prestwick Ridge Way # 39 - Knoxville, TN 37919 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 865-540-1308 http://www.doogle.com > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
