> 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
doogle@doogle.com 865-540-1308
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
