RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

["Mark T." <markthomasz@ozemail.com.au>]

Austin, you criticise Art, then do it yourself..?  How's about we all try 
to attack the ball, not the man..

At 11:31 AM 28/10/01 -0500, you wrote:
>..
> > I don't think there's any point in my responding to an argument like this.
>
>That's the point, it isn't an argument!  It's like asking why the number 9
>is larger than the number 4.  It's just the way it is.

No, it's not 'just the way it is'.  There are five incremented integers 
between 4 and 9, and the term 'larger' than is NOT ambiguous.. :-)

Rob's question of how a dye cloud can contain more information than a pixel 
still stands.. Use your engineering skill and draw a picture!
I'm certainly interested.

>It's just a fact of
>simple physics that a pixel does not contain near the same amount of
>information as a dye cloud.

That's not what was being asked.  You left out 'pixel of the same or 
smaller size'.  Rob also raised the perfectly valid point of the rapid 
development in the number/size of detectors and the amount of color info 
they can detect.  Are you suggesting that dye clouds are so small, ie 
molecular or atomic :-), that there is no way to create a detector that small?

If so, say it..

mark t