[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

Hi Laurie,

Thanks for the rundown on your research on film recorders.

You inspired me to dig up my file on film recorders. What I can fathom
from the literature here, the "resolution" numbers translate to a round
down of the total addressable pixels across the long side.

What I show is a 2K image is 2048 x 1366 pixels
a 3K image is 3072 x 2048 pixels
a 4K image is 4096 x 2732 pixels
a 6K image is 6144 x 4608 pixel
an 8K image is 8192 x 6144 pixel

These are exactly a 3:2 ratio, which is also used for a 35mm film frame.

So, this is basically the number of pixels in the total image,
regardless of the magnification involved.

I don't think it directly relates measurable lines of resolution, but to
addressable points on the screen, sort of like Epson printers have 2880
x 720 addressable points per inch, but that doesn't indicate the
resolution of the image.

Art


Laurie Solomon wrote:

> Arthur,
> I make no claims to expertise or to being even all that knowledgable with
> respect to film recorders.  I recently picked up cheap on Ebay a Polaroid
> Digital Palette 5000s film recorder to play araound with and learn something
> about film recorders and recording.  It is obsolete and 35mm; and may have
> been a bad buy since it looks as if the lamp inside may be going which may
> cost a couple of hundred to fix or replace.  It claims to be a 4K recorder,
> but I suspect that it is probably more accurately a 2K + recorder only
> capable at its maximum 4K setting of nominally achieving 4K.
>

<much cut>



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