I forgot to say one other thing. Granted... not all of that 20+ mb file is raw pixels. It also contains all other kind of file format stuff.
Tom C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 10:09 AM Subject: Re: DPI vs. PPI > That's interesting, but let me ask this. I'll do it rhethorical fashion. > > When I scan a 35mm slide with my 2438ppi scanner, what part of the 20+ > megabyte file would I choose as being inconsequential to the image? > > And now with the 4000ppi scanners it seems there is even more data to be > found in a 35mm frame. > > Tom C. > > Kent Kittings wrote: > > <snip> > > > By the way in the latest > > product news from Fuji they say that generally (without specifying the > film) > > a 35mm snapshot has about 6 MP of info that can be mined out of it with > even > > the best scanners. This is when comparing it to their 6900 digicam that > has > > a 6 MP interpolation mode. I know at some point a higher and higher dpi > film > > scanner will get no more real data out of a negative/slide but just > > interpolation of the areas between the grain. However I was under the > > impression the amount of data on a 35mm frame was higher. So either they > are > > fudging so as to place themselves correctly in the digicam world or they > are > > correct and maybe downplaying the actual data content of their own film to > > move towards a digital world. > > Kent Gittings > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
