[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait

["Mike Kersenbrock" <michaelk@aracnet.com>]

Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> This would make sense if the "dot" size was such that it couldn't
> resolve any finer on a 35mm frame than the 4000 points across.
>
> When spread further out on a larger film, these dots might again become
> discrete even when at double the number.

With really large film that would make sense except for two things.

One is that although the film gets larger, the image on the CRT
probably doesn't.  The image on the CRT is probably the same size
for large and small films. Each film size's adapter camera probably
has the appropriate lens to make this happen.

The other thing is that there isn't necessarily a direct link between
the image pixels and what's on the CRT exposing the film.  May very well,
but not necessarily.  If the image given to the recorder is exactly
it's max resolution, then I'd guess it does, but if smaller or
bigger, the rasterizer software (the recorder itself is handled as
a postscript printer one) takes care of those things so the way it's
presented to the film by the CRT will be one proper for dotsizes, etc.
Certainly true with the default auto-smart-sizing/orientation setting
in the host software. (I use RasterPlus95 2.06 under Windows XP).

AFAIK anyway.

Mike K.

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