on 2/6/01 11:13 AM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you shoot it at, and what do you develop it at? I routinely make
13x19 prints from scanned Plus-X (35mm that is, much less 120), and unless
you take a 6x loupe to the print, you wouldn't see anything looking like grain.
on 2/6/01 11:13 AM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you shoot it at, and what do you develop it at? I routinely make
13x19 prints from scanned Plus-X (35mm that is, much less 120), and unless
you take a 6x loupe to the print, you would see anything looking like grain.
on 2/7/01 7:55 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 2/6/01 11:13 AM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you shoot it at, and what do you develop it at? I routinely make
13x19 prints from scanned Plus-X (35mm that is, much less 120), and unless
you take a
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:06 + (GMT Standard Time) Derek Clarke
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
What does the phrase "Plus X does not reveal grain" mean?
Not alegbra;) Plus-X is a Kodak ISO125 BW film.
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner
: On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:06 + (GMT Standard Time) Derek Clarke
: ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:
: What does the phrase "Plus X does not reveal grain" mean?
: : "Tony Sleep" replied
: Not alegbra;) Plus-X is a Kodak ISO125 BW film.
Now I add that grain is not apparent at modest
Plus-X is a Kodak ISO125 BW film.
Now I add that grain is not apparent at modest enlargements but
certainly visible,just ,at 16x12 inches
What do you shoot it at, and what do you develop it at? I routinely make
13x19 prints from scanned Plus-X (35mm that is, much less 120), and unless
you
Plus-X is a Kodak ISO125 BW film.
Now I add that grain is not apparent at modest enlargements but
certainly visible,just ,at 16x12 inches
What do you shoot it at, and what do you develop it at? I
routinely make
13x19 prints from scanned Plus-X (35mm that is, much less
120), and
In article 001e01c08bbd$d38fa460$617079c0@drt4, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Austin Franklin) wrote:
As for the resolution needed to equal 35mm film, I think I
have seen it quoted
that it would need about 8-10 Megapixels.
It is quite simple to calculate, and, of course, depends on what film
They make them smaller for cost reasons, you can put more dies
(chips) on a
single wafer, which makes them cheaper. That's not quite
the same as
yield...
VERY LARGE ICs have been made in the past, but they are very
expensive to
make because the yields are so poor.
Well,
I work for an IC testing company (Credence Systems) and I know that what
you're saying isn't true. In fact, it's just pure geometry. You don't even
have to understand the physics of it.
Frank Paris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
It isn't true that because
"Austin Franklin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One other thing that just occurred to me: aren't there three
or four pixels on the CCD for each actual pixel seen in the image?
Yes. That is only for color information though, not for edge information.
Except with the Nikon scanners that AFAIK use
I know that professional Video CCD cameras use (or at least did... I'm
somewhat out of touch today) separate chips for each of the two or three
colors (RGB) with some type of beam slipper (some used two and used
subtractive math to "figure out" the third, I believe). That allowed
for smaller
"Austin Franklin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One other thing that just occurred to me: aren't there three
or four pixels on the CCD for each actual pixel seen in the image?
Yes. That is only for color information though, not for
edge information.
Except with the Nikon scanners that
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 1:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was filmscanners: real value?)
I work for an IC testing company (Credence Systems) and I
know that what
you're saying isn't true. In fact, it's just pure geom
need. You will need three channel information, whether it is
interpolated or measured.
-Original Message-
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 6:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was filmscanners: real value
I know that professional Video CCD cameras use (or at least did... I'm
somewhat out of touch today) separate chips for each of the two or three
colors (RGB) with some type of beam slipper (some used two and used
subtractive math to "figure out" the third, I believe). That allowed
for
I know that professional Video CCD cameras use (or at least
did... I'm
somewhat out of touch today) separate chips for each of the
two or three
colors (RGB) with some type of beam slipper (some used two and used
subtractive math to "figure out" the third, I believe).
The three CCD
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Clark
Guy wrote:
WHY?
because we are already approaching the limit of how small a single pixel can
be. It can't be smaller than a wavelength of light, and we are approaching
this limit even now. On top of that, the smaller they are the more noisy
they become, so
since the data can be multiplexed
on-chip.
I think it's just marketing, but time will tell.
--Bob
-Original Message-
From: B.Rumary [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 12:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Future of Photography (was filmscanners
As for the resolution needed to equal 35mm film, I think I
have seen it quoted
that it would need about 8-10 Megapixels.
It is quite simple to calculate, and, of course, depends on what film you
want to try to 'emulate'. At 5080DPI Plus-X does not reveal grain. That
means 5080 x 1 x 5080 x
One other thing that just occurred to me: aren't there three
or four pixels
on the CCD for each actual pixel seen in the image?
Yes. That is only for color information though, not for edge information.
The edge information exists in each individual pixel. This arrangement of
RGBG is called
that you are helping me make my point, even if I am being
over pessimistic.
Guy Clark
-Original Message-
From: Murphy, Bob H [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 12:26 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was filmscanners: real value
).
Jack Phipps
-Original Message-
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 1:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was filmscanners: real value?)
As for the resolution needed to equal 35mm film, I think I
have seen it quoted
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jack Phipps
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 6:48 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RE: Future of Photography (was filmscanners: real value?)
Unless it is color. Then it would be:
24mm/25.4=.944 inches x 5080 = 4800
36mm/25.4=1.417
24 matches
Mail list logo
