On 09/06/2007 R. Jackson wrote:
> to fully resolve the grain
> structure of film takes WAY more resolution than you need to replace
> it as a capture medium.
Yup. At one time I had 4,000 8,000 and 12,000ppi scans of the same bit of
film. 8,000 was clearly better than 4,000 (not hugely, but clearly), but
12,000 still showed further improvement albeit diminishing returns.
12,000ppi recorded the grain topology more accurately.
Now, an information theorist will tell you that's a waste of effort
because the image itself has far lower spatial frequencies than all those
pointless wiggly edges of clumps of grain. And they'd be right, except the
film image *is* the grain rather than what it encodes, and you can see a
difference with mushy grain that just doesn't look right. But that's the
difference between photographers and information theorists, taste and
judgement ;)
None of this matters much if you don't print big enough for it to matter
or don't care, and I've never longed for more than 4,000ppi personally.
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
