RE: DPI vs. PPI
On Thu, 27 Dec 2001 09:24:41 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: [...] colour film scanners usually utilize a 3 linear arrays each with a primary colour filtration [...] the sensor in a camera (not the tethered studio back type) has the three colour filters over adjacent pixels in a 4 pixel grid ie. 2 green a blue and a red and the data is captured across the sensor virtually simultaneously so the real resolution is far less than the sensor pixel count. This has been my experience, too. TTYL, DougF - 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 .
RE: DPI vs. PPI
Sorry but color CCD digicams use exactly the same technology as scanners in most cases. The only interpolation they do is if they are capable of producing a result that has higher res than the number of actual pixels in the CCD grid. Which is exactly how a 1200x2400 pixel/dot scanner can come up with an interpolated scan that is 9600x9600. 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Franklin Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 10:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DPI vs. PPI On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:50:24 -0700, aimcompute wrote: I have noticed that scanner mfr.'s use the term interchangeably. For instance Minolta lists their scanner resolutions in dpi. I've always thought of it as pixels each have all of the color vectors (R, G, and B, or C, M, Y, and K, or whatever), whiles dots have only one color vector. Sort of like the difference in color scanner sensors and digicam sensors. The color scanner samples all of the colors at each pixel while the digicam (generally) only samples one color at each pixel, then interpolates the other colors. Printers generally get described in dots while scanners and monitors in pixels. YMMV TTYL, DougF - 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 email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** - 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 .
Re: DPI vs. PPI
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. I've read this in other places too. Bill, KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
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 .
Re: DPI vs. PPI
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 .
RE: DPI vs. PPI
I don't know either. If I thought that there was really only about 6 MP of real info in a 35mm frame I might make the switch to digital sooner than I expect to. But I'm not sure they are not fudging their opinions down so as to sell large amounts of their higher end digital cameras. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of aimcompute Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 12:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** - 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 .
Re: DPI vs. PPI
I agree with your suspicion. My Minolta, in raw pixels gets about 8mb from a 35mm frame. With the 4000dpi scanners, a raw pixel count of about 20mb is realized. It does seem there is more than 6 megapixels of information in a 35mm film frame. It's the standards issue again... and what size the final output will be. For most people 6 mega-pixels may be good enough, but good enough and as good may be two different things, depending on the user's intentions. Tom C. - Original Message - From: Kent Gittings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:06 AM Subject: RE: DPI vs. PPI I don't know either. If I thought that there was really only about 6 MP of real info in a 35mm frame I might make the switch to digital sooner than I expect to. But I'm not sure they are not fudging their opinions down so as to sell large amounts of their higher end digital cameras. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of aimcompute Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 12:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** - 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 .
Re: DPI vs. PPI
To the best of my knowledge, 10K dpi will resolve the grain of normal film. Someone on the list said his 400 dpi would do that, but I think there is a difference between showing the grain and fully resolving it. I do know that the best print I have received from the PDML Printer Challenge was scaned on a very high resolution scanner, so apparently the higher the scan resolution the better the final image. If 6mp does the job, why do the advertising pros use backs that produce 100mb+ images? A 6mp back produces an 18mb image. I think that it is advertising speak for we think you are stupid enough to believe this. Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Kent Gittings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:45 AM Subject: RE: DPI vs. PPI Sorry but color CCD digicams use exactly the same technology as scanners in most cases. The only interpolation they do is if they are capable of producing a result that has higher res than the number of actual pixels in the CCD grid. Which is exactly how a 1200x2400 pixel/dot scanner can come up with an interpolated scan that is 9600x9600. 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Doug Franklin Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 10:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DPI vs. PPI On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:50:24 -0700, aimcompute wrote: I have noticed that scanner mfr.'s use the term interchangeably. For instance Minolta lists their scanner resolutions in dpi. I've always thought of it as pixels each have all of the color vectors (R, G, and B, or C, M, Y, and K, or whatever), whiles dots have only one color vector. Sort of like the difference in color scanner sensors and digicam sensors. The color scanner samples all of the colors at each pixel while the digicam (generally) only samples one color at each pixel, then interpolates the other colors. Printers generally get described in dots while scanners and monitors in pixels. YMMV TTYL, DougF - 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 email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** - 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 .
Re: DPI vs. PPI
And, why pay for a 10Kdpi drum scan? Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: aimcompute [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 12:09 PM 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 .
Re: DPI vs. PPI
While we are talking about advertising speak, please explain how a scanner can get a density range of 4.2 on a scale of 0 to 4? Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Kent Gittings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 2:13 PM Subject: RE: DPI vs. PPI True but if raw pixel count is only getting the equivalent of interpolation between the film grains you may not be getting anything real. If the image blown up is a little fuzzy around the edges of things then more pixels will not cure the problem. Only a sharper image with more pixels can help. Finding that line to crossover from film to digital is the key. If you were using Kodak Techpan 2415 then more info than 6 MP could be gotten out of the resulting negative. But maybe with 800ASA Superia X-tra the results would provide the same information in the shot. Would be interesting if some magazine was willing to test this out. Say using a Nikon D-1x vs. an F-5 or a Canon D-1 vs. an EOS-1v. Then try successively faster films scanned on something like a Minolta Scan Pro (4800 DPI, 48 color, 4.2 dynamic range) to maximize the film info and find out at what point the film results were hard to tell from the digicam. Sort of like comparing good lenses. But then again maybe with their agendas the film/camera makers don't want that to happen less they have people moving towards one result effectively harming the other suddenly. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of aimcompute Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 1:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DPI vs. PPI I agree with your suspicion. My Minolta, in raw pixels gets about 8mb from a 35mm frame. With the 4000dpi scanners, a raw pixel count of about 20mb is realized. It does seem there is more than 6 megapixels of information in a 35mm film frame. It's the standards issue again... and what size the final output will be. For most people 6 mega-pixels may be good enough, but good enough and as good may be two different things, depending on the user's intentions. Tom C. - Original Message - From: Kent Gittings [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 11:06 AM Subject: RE: DPI vs. PPI I don't know either. If I thought that there was really only about 6 MP of real info in a 35mm frame I might make the switch to digital sooner than I expect to. But I'm not sure they are not fudging their opinions down so as to sell large amounts of their higher end digital cameras. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of aimcompute Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 12:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ** - 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
RE: DPI vs. PPI
On 26 Dec 2001 at 11:45, Kent Gittings wrote: Sorry but color CCD digicams use exactly the same technology as scanners in most cases. The only interpolation they do is if they are capable of producing a result that has higher res than the number of actual pixels in the CCD grid. I can't get my head around your statement above. No colour film scanners that I have ever used use interpolation to generate a higher pixel count than the raw sensor provides whereas virtually every colour digital camera is required to interpolate the sensor data in order to produce any image at all. This is because colour film scanners usually utilize a 3 linear arrays each with a primary colour filtration hence their data acquisition is 1:1 however the data is acquired line by line in a non-time constrained manner. Whereas the sensor in a camera (not the tethered studio back type) has the three colour filters over adjacent pixels in a 4 pixel grid ie. 2 green a blue and a red and the data is captured across the sensor virtually simultaneously so the real resolution is far less than the sensor pixel count. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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 .
Re: DPI vs. PPI
On 26 Dec 2001 at 11:28, aimcompute wrote: It's the standards issue again... and what size the final output will be. For most people 6 mega-pixels may be good enough, but good enough and as good may be two different things, depending on the user's intentions. I suspect that too, many people slate APS as being too small a format yet my 4000dpi scanner produces a fairly grain free 11.3MP image from an APS frame. In contrast a 36mm x 24mm frame produces a 21.43MP scan at 4000dpi, this is a far cry from 6MP (or scanned APS) and also consider the density and colour depth advantages as many scanners have 14bit DAC on each colour channel. Then again processing film sucks :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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 .
Re: DPI vs. PPI
On 26 Dec 2001 at 15:31, Tom Rittenhouse wrote: To the best of my knowledge, 10K dpi will resolve the grain of normal film. Someone on the list said his 400 dpi would do that, but I think there is a difference between showing the grain and fully resolving it. All very valid points, I have noted time and time again that the detail extracted from my films at 4000dpi is not as detailed as the view that I see through my 20x optical microscope, so there is more data to be had before we get to the point of being able to fully resolve individual grains. Obviously I am not talking about 800ISO film here, I am talking slow fine grained films. The fast 320ISO mode on my Oly E-10 (4MP) is atrocious for grain, shooting the regular 80ISO still shows noise (this in in full sunlight and with TIFF (11.3MB) or RAW mode output files) more than any sub 200ISO slide film at the same magnification. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html - 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 .
Re: DPI vs. PPI
I agree with his suspicion and your agreement :-). Seriously, I scan my 35 mm negs at 4000 ppi, which yields a file of about 55 megabytes. As a test, I've tried scanning at 2000 ppi, which produced a file of 20+megabytes. A print from the 55 megabyte file was obviously superior in terms of detail sharpness and color gradation. Paul aimcompute wrote: I agree with your suspicion. My Minolta, in raw pixels gets about 8mb from a 35mm frame. With the 4000dpi scanners, a raw pixel count of about 20mb is realized. It does seem there is more than 6 megapixels of information in a 35mm film frame. - 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 .
Re: DPI vs. PPI
I have noticed that scanner mfr.'s use the term interchangeably. For instance Minolta lists their scanner resolutions in dpi. Not trying to be nit-picky... I promise I'm not... but if the product manufacturers who write the specs call it that, I guess it's not wrong to use the term. In essence a pixel is a dot of light, the absence of a dot of light, or a place for a dot of light to go. At least that's what I think... I think. Tom C. I would tend to agree with you Tom. However, playing devil's advocate, ppi surely refers to input and images on a monitor, and dpi refers to output on a printer? It is being picky, you're right. I prefer dpi personally - then everyone knows what we mean! Cheers, Cotty ___ Personal email traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] MacAds traffic to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check out the UK Macintosh ads http://www.macads.co.uk - 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 .
Re: DPI vs. PPI
On Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:50:24 -0700, aimcompute wrote: I have noticed that scanner mfr.'s use the term interchangeably. For instance Minolta lists their scanner resolutions in dpi. I've always thought of it as pixels each have all of the color vectors (R, G, and B, or C, M, Y, and K, or whatever), whiles dots have only one color vector. Sort of like the difference in color scanner sensors and digicam sensors. The color scanner samples all of the colors at each pixel while the digicam (generally) only samples one color at each pixel, then interpolates the other colors. Printers generally get described in dots while scanners and monitors in pixels. YMMV TTYL, DougF - 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 .
