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

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> Austin wrote:
> >Now that's an odd thing to do...claim a pixel has nothing to do with
> >physics...  I don't know about your scanner, but mine is not Gnostic.
>
> *sigh* As I tried to explain earlier, Austin, *you* are talking
> about scanner
> pixels, and I am not.  That's why you can't see the point I was trying to
> make.

I see THIS point as well as the others you are trying to make, and I
disagree with them.  Pixels have to come from SOMEWHERE, now don't they?

> > Except for the fact that we are talking about film scanners,
> > and the are a pixel can represent is limited by physics...
>
> You were talking film scanners.  I wasn't.

Then were are YOUR magic pixels coming from?

> > Yes, and it ONLY represents tonality, NO other characteristic
> > at all is represented by a pixel.
>
> No other characteristic is needed.  It's a component of an image.

It IS when you make the statements you did.

> The point I was trying to make (a long time ago, and it
> got lost in the confusion) was that digital image capture technology will
> advance to the point where there's no reason to use film.

I disagree (in our lifetimes that is), and I pointed out why...the physical
limitation of sensor size limits the ability to make higher density sensors.
As I stated before, you have to get wires in and out of each of the sensor
elements, as well as light!

> > this...and NO, because of physical limitations on sensor
> > element sizes (that are NOT the same as faster processors,
> > larger memory etc...those aren't analog sensors, so advances
> > in those areas are not entirely applicable to advances in
> > digital imaging sensors in this case) you can not just
> > "increase the resolution of the grid".
>
> Does your eye have more sensors than any CCD in existence today?

No, but it is not that clear cut.  That is also an entirely different topic
of discussion.

> It translates
> light into electrical impulses.  Just because current technology
> has certain
> limits, it doesn't mean that those limits are absolute as far as solving
> the problem is concerned.

Let me know when you can run faster than a school bus or walk through solid
rock.

> The reason I mentioned changes in CPU speed was its
> relationship
> to future technology.  Back in 1983 when I was using an Apple IIe, nobody
> had any idea how to make a practical gigahertz microprocessor.

But it's an entirely different endeavor to make analog sensors than it is to
make an entirely digital microprocessor.  Yes, there are analog components
to microprocessors, but in 1983 no one was up against any physical
limitations WRT microprocessor design, in the same sense.  The limitations
were that of process technology, which is entirely different.  I have been
designing ICs for nearly 20 years now, so I have some experience in this
area.

> Right now
> it may be that nobody knows how to make a practical 12Mpix CCD
> (or whatever
> number of pixels people decide they need).  But I'm convinced that someone
> will make a 12 megapixel (pick a number) image capture device if
> the demand
> is there, and it can be done profitably.

This is where there are two arguments, and you distinctly chose one and not
the other.  You chose to make comparisons to film.  That is not the better
argument in my opinion.  The better argument, in my opinion, is the "good
enough" argument, as in, do you get acceptable quality output from a digital
camera for your purposes.  In some circumstances, yes, you will, and in
fact, most people will.  That doesn't mean digital cameras ARE better than
film, but that they meet the needs.  For snapshots...digital cameras are
generally fine.  It's when you start to make the enlargements bigger and
bigger than film starts to win.

> The camera manufacturers have started falling over each other trying to
> make the latest and greatest digital cameras.  That's exactly
> what was needed
> for the technology to accelerate.  Consumer level marketing.  The computer
> industry didn't really take off until computers became a consumer item.

That does not accelerate the high end market, it only makes for cheaper
consumer level cameras.  The consumer sensors are FAR worse than the
professional level sensors, but they are "good enough".