[filmscanners] RE: 3 year wait

["Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>]

Art.

Thanks for the info.  I may have been misinformed with respect to LPI.  I
can accept and agree with your conclusions in the last two paragraphs.  I am
not sure that "an 8K image is 8192 x 6144 pixel" will be " exactly a 3:2
ratio, which is also used for a 35mm film frame" only because in film
recorder speak I think that there may be a differetiation between "an 8K
image" and "8K" as it relates to the recorder hardware designation specs.  I
think that the "image pixel figures" you give are software generated and
apply to a 8K film recorder using a 35mm CRT but would be different for one
using a larger film format CRT.  Moreover, a 4K film recorder would not be
capable of an 8K image even if the software would be capable of showing such
a setting; and there are, to the best of my knowledge, no 6K film recorders
(an 8K film recorder may be capable of generating such an image if the
software were set for that).

Once again, I think that the literature and popular wisdom is very
ambiguous, vague, and confusing when it comes to film recorders.  Those who
are in the know appear to have formed a secret society in which knowlege is
passed on privately sort of like the craft of magic. :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 3:09 AM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait


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 an 8K image is 8192 x 6144 pixel.

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

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