As a result of the continuing and escalating acrimony between Austin and
myself, and his incessant nitpicking of my postings, I do not intend to
respond directly either publicly or privately to his postings in the
future. I bring this to the attention of the other members so that you
understand
Further, the issues he has brought up to question below were asides and
tangential to the main points I was making in my post which were
concerning the discussion comparing color dye clouds and capture of
images digitally, not black and white developing,
I DID talk about color (see below),
Austin, you criticise Art, then do it yourself..? How's about we all try
to attack the ball, not the man..
Woah, Mark...where did I make a personal attack on Rob? I DID stick to the
ball...please point it out...I am interested.
At 11:31 AM 28/10/01 -0500, you wrote:
..
I don't think
]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels
per inch vs DPI
Austin,
Most of what you are saying in this latest missive was brought up
before and rejected by Rob. It was at that
point that I gave up. But, kudos to you for your tenacity and
deep knowledge
Dye clouds are a double edged sword.
On the one hand, due to the random positioning and their transparent
nature, they can make for a very small apparent resolution because they
can overlap in all sorts of random patterns making areas much smaller
than a fixed array of pixels which would read
Thanks, It would appear the C70 hasn't made it over the great water yet.
It does look like a less expensive version of the C80. Hope it comes
our way soon.
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Is the C70 being sold anywhere around the world now?
I see you folks recommending these other Epsons a lot, that aren't
advertised with the six color photo printing.Is there any real
advantage to going with something like the 890 or 1280 over one of
the less expensive office color inkjets?
I'm using a HP 722C right now, and I actually get
, 2001 11:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels
per inch vs DPI
Austin,
Most of what you are saying in this latest missive was brought up
before and rejected by Rob. It was at that
point that I gave up. But, kudos to you
Austin wrote..
..I DID stick to the
ball...please point it out...I am interested.
I'm away from my normal PC right now, so I can't quote the lines that I felt were
getting personal (a convenient cop-out, I know!), but comments like this:
'..but I really don't know what more I can
Austin Franklin wrote:
Very simply, grain, or dye clouds are predetermined in their location
and shape and are not relocated by picture content.
What about development?
I could just answer this with an Austinism and say what about it?,
but I'll afford you a little more respect
I think the model many of the major multinational high tech companies
use is to get their RD money back first via selling to markets that are
less price sensitive. Then they introduce the product into the US,
pretty much paid for through other international sales, and can
compete more easily in
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is a randomly sized and shaped dye cloud a useful characteristic of
shape and position? How is it more useful than a precise position in an
array?
Because it is. It's the way the world works. It IS additional
information,
plain and simple.
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How is a randomly sized and shaped dye cloud a useful
characteristic of
shape and position? How is it more useful than a precise
position in an
array?
Because it is. It's the way the world works. It IS additional
information,
plain and
Is the C70 being sold anywhere around the world now?
http://www.epson.com.au/products/home_and_office/C70.html
Yes.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Austin wrote:
That's the point, it isn't an argument! It's like asking
why the number 9 is larger than the number 4. It's just
the way it is. It's just a fact of simple physics that a
pixel does not contain near the same amount of information
as a dye cloud.
I suspected I should have
Austin wrote:
That's the point, it isn't an argument! It's like asking
why the number 9 is larger than the number 4. It's just
the way it is. It's just a fact of simple physics that a
pixel does not contain near the same amount of information
as a dye cloud.
I suspected I should
I agree about the eventually partbut not yet. I am talking about what is now, not
what is theoretically
possible, and probable. We essentially, are in agreement.
Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID photography, NYC
Rob Geraghty wrote:
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I
Austin,
Most of what you are saying in this latest missive was brought up before and rejected
by Rob. It was at that
point that I gave up. But, kudos to you for your tenacity and deep knowledge on this
subject. I feel like
I've been vindicated, and by someone with far more skill than I.
Rob Geraghty wrote:
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
SKID Photography wrote:
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
Harvey,
Just to clarify, my original comments about the randomization of the
pixel edges, etc. was in response to your comment below. I was not
implying that current pixel resolution could achieve photographic grain
randomness or resolution at current.
However, I would agree with Rob that
I couldn't (and probably didn't) say it better myself ;-)
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering
pattern to represent pixels that film
grain and scan pixels (samples, whatever) are
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I agree that the pixels will be 'smoother' because of the inkjet
dither pattern, film grain still contains/imparts more information (on a
one to one basis) than a pixel, not matter how it is dithered by the
printer.
Why? So far I've heard this
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob wrote:
I don't see why stochastic or random dye clouds inherently
provides more
information than a pixel.
Actually, FAR more. It's their position and size, not their color, that
is
far more information than pixels are. Pixels (in
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But a dye cloud is more than color. It is ALSO shape and position. Those
characteristics (information) are NOT represented by color.
How is a randomly sized and shaped dye cloud a useful characteristic of
shape and position? How is it more useful
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But a dye cloud is more than color. It is ALSO shape and
position. Those
characteristics (information) are NOT represented by color.
How is a randomly sized and shaped dye cloud a useful characteristic of
shape and position? How is it more
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
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's important to remember that film grain and pixels are not
interchangeable terms.
I didn't mean to imply that they were. I was simply trying to make an
analogy
about expected viewing distance.
I think that part of it, is that pixels are
I don't see why stochastic or random dye clouds inherently provides more
information
than a pixel.
Actually, FAR more. It's their position and size, not their color, that is
far more information than pixels are. Pixels (in current implementations)
must fall on a grid pattern, and are a
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
Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rob wrote:
I don't see why stochastic or random dye clouds inherently provides more
information than a pixel.
Actually, FAR more. It's their position and size, not their color, that
is
far more information than pixels are. Pixels (in current
SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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?
I think
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
| SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Are you saying that because inkjet printers employ a schoastic dithering
| pattern to represent pixels that film
| grain and scan
Austin wrote:
from my images, 35mm or 2 1/4. I really can't imagine every seeing a 100ppi
output that was nice... Even 180 is too low, except for the largest
of
images I print. 240 is about the minimum acceptable resolution I can send
to the printer, or image quality degrades quite noticeably.
Austin wrote:
Why would you want to output at a fixed 300 PPI?
Because that's the requirement of the offset printer which many of my recent
photos are going to. Aside from that, 300 dpi is as a general rule of thumb
the best resolution *most* printers (pc and otherwise) work with. Some
are
Austin wrote:
Certainly a prolific problem. I prefer to say SPI as it
relates to the scanner, PPI is what you output TO the
printer driver, and DPI is what the printer prints.
*I* know you mean samples per inch, pixels per inch and dots per inch, but
a newbie will find all the terminology
2. If you want to print the picture, the maximum size you can
print is limited to the number of pixels expressed at 300 ppi.
I always set the output resolution of Vuescan to 300dpi.
I have no idea what you mean by that...would you please elaborate?
OK. I don't have any files to work
37 matches
Mail list logo
