[filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints

["Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>]

Hi David,

> I think you've misunderstood what I've said. Take a 900 x 900 pixel crop
> from your 5080 dpi scan and print it at 3x3 inches. Take a
> 900x900 crop from
> a 10D image and print it at 3x3 inches. Which looks better?

That depends, and I am curious why you think that is of any value?  If a 300
x 300 crop from a 10D represents 16x more area, why not compare actual area
for area?  You're making the arbitrary choice of sensor sizes/metrics here.
The pixel area from one is not necessarily of equal value to the pixel area
from another, and what the equality is, depends on how many pixels there are
for the respective image.

I could downsample my scanner to give me the exact same image area
information as the 10D, and that information would contain complete color
values, not interpolated pixels.

> So the argument that scanned pixels are, on an individual basis,
> in any way
> better than 10D pixels, strikes me as seriously problematic.

But...the 10D doesn't really have pixels...it has sensors, and those sensors
are in a Bayer pattern.  The scanner has full color pixels, and the output
of the scanner can be made to give you pixels that represent the same image
information.  Now, if you want to compare that (and why not, it's pixels for
pixels, which is your metric, and IMO, a far better metric than the
processed output of a digicam vs the "raw" output of a film scanner), then I
guarantee you my 5080 DPI scanner will give me a FAR better looking image
than the 10D will.

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