Of film recorders yes --- 4K is sort of 4K and the definition does depend on the size of the tube and quality of the printer etc. etc......
Having said that an old Polaroid 5000 CI ? 4K or a Mirus Galleria 5K do not give the results of newer printers these have about a 2.5" tube. The Polaroid Pallette 8K and the 4K printers now have a 7" tube.which allows better definition ( don't know what the tube size is for the LFR). I was scanning 2700 off the LS2000 which gave a file size 28M tif which interpolated up to 4032x2689 about 32M gave near the results of the original slide. Now scanning at 4800 dpi the results at 4K are better. If I let my printer (an 8K Polaroid) use the full scan size which is near 6444x4284 (79M) they still show improvement over the 4K print. IMO you will not determine the resolution of film by printing from a film printer there are too many other factors involved. Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > And that is simply the following: > > > - 4096 x 2731 good scan from Ektachrome output back to film at 4K rez > > > > Actually, that's what I'm having a "problem" with...calling that 4k rez... > > (which is what the gist of my involvement in this discussion was about, > > trying to understand what it meant, and why on earth anyone would call it > > that ;-). I know what you mean by it, that the long side of the 35mm frame > > is 4k...but that isn't the "language" that scanners (printers etc.) are > > spoken about in, but it appears that film recorders have their own > > definition of what "4k" means. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
