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 http://tonysleep.co.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body