Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

[SKID Photography <skid@bway.net>]

Art,
I'm not trying to be difficult, but  I don't understand what you are trying to 
say with the below post
relative to film grain.

Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering 
pattern to represent pixels that film
grain and scan pixels (samples, whatever) are equivalent in regards to the 
amount of information they impart
to an inkjet printer?

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Pixels are pretty much only in an array and rectangular on a monitor or
> a continuous tone printer output.  Since inkjet printers use a sub-array
> of randomized dots to create the illusion of a specific pixel color
> (usually blended into its surrounding "pixel" neighbors, as well), there
> is rarely any true delineation of rectangular pixels in inkjet prints,
> which use either dithering or an error diffusion pattern to create blends.
>
> Art
>
> SKID Photography wrote:
>
>  > Rob Geraghty wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >>I think that's an important point - we all have different standards.  I
>  >>have a photographic print on my wall at home which everyone I know loves,
>  >>yet it was made from ordinary 100ASA Kodak print film back in about 1982.
>  >> It's quite grainy!  The point is you would normally view it from halfway
>  >>across the room, not at reading distance.  For me, this is the sort
> of situation
>  >>where a print with less than 240 ppi would work.
>  >>
>  >
>  > I think it's important to remember that film grain and pixels are not
> interchangeable terms.  One can have a
>  > really grainy image, blown way up and still have a full rich tonal
> range and luminescence, where as the same
>  > cannot be said for a digital output that has too few pixels.
>  >
>  > I think that part of it, is that pixels are aligned in a grid and
> have a rectilinear shape, whereas the film
>  > grain is (for lack of a better description) schoastic in arrangement
> and irregular in shape, thereby providing
>  > more tonal information than pixels.
>  >
>  > I know that there are those out there that think grain is a dirty
> word and that the presence of it, limits the
>  > possible size or viewing distance of a print.  But go to any museum
> with a good photo collection and you will
>  > see that the masters were easily able to get beyond those artificial
> limitations.  That is not to say that the
>  > grainy images will be the same as an 8x10 contact print. Separate but
> equal.
>  >
>  > Harvey Ferdschneider
>  > partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>  >
>  >
>  > .
>  >
>  >