Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: filmscanners: 35mm filmscanner choice
> If a manufacturer was to list an lpi speck using the same method they
> list dpi specks, they would simply be i/2 the dpi or ppi number.
"half" was what I was expecting (for the ideal case, as it were), though I
was wondering whether it is trickier than that, because resolution in
optical terms is about distinguishing a pair (or pairs) of black lines, as
far as I can tell. How well one has to distinguish these lines is just one
question I could ask, but won't.
> I do
> not believe any CCD scanner can take this theoretical and bring it into
> reality.
>
> That also explains why the two Nikons (for example) show little
> difference in resolution when tested at output, in spite of about a 35%
> increase in the number of sensor elements per inch. There appear to be
> other matters than the sensor density in terms of reaching limitations
> in desktop scanners.
A while back on this list there was a discussion about why teh Nikons use so
many elements in the lenses. One thought occurred to me: maybe the 4000 and
40 share a lens. And maybe, gulp, this lens is also used in the 8000. It
would certainly keep costs down...
Jawed
|
