In this context, you are right on Denise. Regards, Ron
- Original Message -
From: "Denise E. Kissinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
06 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
> well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and very
interesting
> reading,
> but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a
> Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens
> to judge the quality of
ptics.
Regards,
Alex Z
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Graham
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 10:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
well thats an astonishing amount of work on this
ering
whether the results would apply also to their lenses.
Alessandro Pardi
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Graham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: martedì 30 ottobre 2001 21.06
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Website ref. re - Pixels per inch vs DPI
&
well thats an astonishing amount of work on this site, and very interesting
reading,
but what dropped my jaw was that he did the tests on a
Canon Elan with a Canon 28-105mm lens
to judge the quality of 35mm vs 5x4" (among other things) with this is
plainly ridiculous
I'm not trying to be a snob he
> As for me, I'm quite surprised at the image quality obtainable
> from, say, a 3.3 Mp camera if there is so much interpolation going on.
I agree...but what you are seeing, though it looks really good, isn't really
all in the original image. These cameras do maintain edge detail very well,
but
I would highly recommend a visit to:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
if you are interested in questions like 'How many Mp do I need to get to x quality..?'
Mr Clark has excellent samples and simulations up to 194 Mp (!) equivalents, and some
quite detailed information.
As f
