Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-31 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-31 Thread Austin Franklin
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),

RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-29 Thread Austin Franklin
] 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

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-29 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-29 Thread SKID Photography
, 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

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-29 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-28 Thread Austin Franklin
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

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-28 Thread SKID Photography
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.