[filmscanners] RE: 3 year wait

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

> If
> you wanted to scan at 8K
> rez, then you'd have 5461 square maximum necessary, again, the
> short side of the
> 120 film. However, your 8K file, run on my recorder at either 4K
> or 8K capability *on
> 35mm film* will not look any different on output (at least to
> your eye - perhaps there
> are "measurable" diffs, I dunno). That's why I say that the
> apparant resolving power of
> 35mm film is reached at the 4096 x 2731 pixel count (using exact
> 35mm proportions).

I don't believe you can base your conclusion on the data you have (I thought
about that on an errand I just ran).  It could very well be the recorder,
for what ever reason, is not able to output 8k on a 35mm short side "well".
That doesn't mean it's limited by the film, but limited by the recorder.  It
could be, for many reasons, optics, vibration, imaging technology...I don't
know, but I would not draw the same conclusion you have.

Again, thanks for the discussion on film recorders, an area I previously
knew not much about.

Regards,

Austin

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