Ken wrote:
> see it relates mostly to size. I'm still not entirely
> sure why high res scans look better on a screen only
> capable of displaying 72dpi. I tried a slide at 2720
> and then 680 dpi, sized the two scans the same, and the
> 2720 looked far better, especially under high zooms.
The r
> The reason you're confused is that the term "dpi" is being used
> for several
> things.
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've been find of flamed for saying "scre
CTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:45 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
;- Original Message -
>From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:45 PM
>Subject: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
Original Message -
>> From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:45 PM
>> Subject: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
>
I like Maris' terms.
Differentiation is important at leas
on 10/22/01 11:54 PM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
> With scanners, saying samples per inch tends to suggest samples within the
> optical resolution of the scanner
Not at all. A scanner is an analog data acquisition device, and it IS, in
fact, sampling, as in taking samples.
> > 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 other
Whatever works for each of us I guess. I was trying to point out that
printer dots are not relevant to anything that I actually deal with (as in,
I don't have to decide on what dpi to set, or allow for it, or even know
what it is, to get 'proper' results - apart from as a specification on the
Actually, I'm blind. I was in despair until I found this photography hobby.
Now it's all that keeps me going...
Seriously, I mean 100 ppi sent to the printer, not a 100 pixel wide image! I
have standards.
...
OK, the truth is I have very low standards...
Oh, never mind. I shouldn't have said a
(still chuckling :) Thanks for the very refreshing posts, Wire! Makes me glad I came
back..
Hey, Austin.. Drop the loupe, hop up from your desk, stick an 11" x 17" 300dpi print
on the wall next to a 200 and a 100 - and then take 2 steps backward..
It is generally agreed that your average phot
> Seriously, I mean 100 ppi sent to the printer, not a 100 pixel
> wide image! I
> have standards.
I knew you meant 100ppi sent to the printer...and as I said, I can't imagine
how you are getting "quality" images at 100ppi, unless they are small images
like 4x6 or very poor negatives that don't
The original HP Photosmart printer (the big boxy one), which at the time
produced some of the best photo-quality images that came out of an
inkjet printer, was designed around input of 100-150 ppi, and used 300
ppi output based upon a 6 "color" (CcMmyK) process. In fact, if memory
serves me, it c
> Hey, Austin.. Drop the loupe, hop up from your desk, stick an 11"
> x 17" 300dpi print on the wall next to a 200 and a 100 - and then
> take 2 steps backward..
I have a wall I use for print evaluation. It has a large magnetic white
board, and strip magnets on it, used to hold the prints. I p
Austin wrote:
>My largest print size is 17x22 from my 3000. I can see differences from
>"standard viewing distances" that have
>convinced me that 180+ is the minimum resolution that is acceptable to me
>for the type of work I do, if not 240+ preferred. 100 is vastly degraded.
'Vastly'? Well,
> The process used a type
> of overprinting - laying down more than one ink drop per location,
If true, that would be interesting. My understanding is the inks used in
these types of inkjet printers can't do that, simply because the (I believe
it's because they are pigmented?) inks don't mix. I
"Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> side by side and evaluate them. My largest print size is 17x22 from my
> 3000. I can see differences from "standard viewing distances" that have
> convinced me that 180+ is the minimum resolution that is acceptable to me
> for the type of work I do,
> Hi Austin,
>
> Do you have another printer?
Yes. Another 3000 ;-) and two 1160s.
> The reason I ask is that the 3000
> is very long
> in the tooth.
Well, it ends up that it's still the absolute best printer for Piezography,
much to my delight!
> I'm just wondering how the output from an 11
"Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, it ends up that it's still the absolute best printer for
Piezography,
> much to my delight!
Ah, but the Piezo printer driver completely replaces the Epson one.
> For B&W (Piezography) the 3000 is FAR better than the 1160. Even the Cone
> boys
Austin Franklin wrote:
>>The process used a type
>>of overprinting - laying down more than one ink drop per location,
>>
>
> If true, that would be interesting. My understanding is the inks
used in
> these types of inkjet printers can't do that, simply because the (I
believe
> i
"Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the only consumer "out of box" printers using pigmented inks that I'm
aware
> of are the Epson 2000P and the new C80.
There's another Epson; I think the C70. It's basically the same as the C80
but
a little slower. Uses the same carts.
Rob
> Others that use pigmented inks, although I wouldn't refer to them as
> consumer grade, are the Epson 5500, 7500 and 9500, some of the Rolands,
> and some other larger carriage printers. The other Epsons, including the
> 3000, and even the 870/890 1270/1290 use dyes, although the later were
> su
Just out of interest, where is the C70 being sold? I haven't seen it on
the US Epson web site. I've seen the C60 which uses dye inks, similar
to the older Epsons. I'd guess the C70 would be a photo six color,
based upon Epson's past numerical "naming" of their printers (just a
guess)..., but wh
As usual, you've pulled another "Austin".
I'm going to take this step by step, so that you don't have the wriggle
room that you usually try to create for yourself.
I arrived in this discussion after you stated that in was not possible
to get acceptable photo results from 100 dpi input, and I st
> As usual, you've pulled another "Austin".
Art, just because I have pointed out you don't know what you're talking
about quite a few times, and the fact that you are NOT an engineer, but like
to pretend you are, and that I sometimes disagree with your "assessments" of
things, that is no reason t
From: Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I didn't leave anything out...it doesn't matter WHAT size pixel, a
pixel is
> but a single value of tonality, period. A pixel does NOT contain
the same
> amount of information as A dye cloud. As I said, dye clouds are
variable in
> shape, and a pixel i
> From: Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I didn't leave anything out...it doesn't matter WHAT size pixel, a
> pixel is
> > but a single value of tonality, period. A pixel does NOT contain
> the same
> > amount of information as A dye cloud. As I said, dye clouds are
> variable in
> > shap
Austin - is this true? Can you show documentation to demonstrate? - bec if
it is true then I am very surprised and have been very badly mislead.
Julian
At 10:42 30/10/01, Austin wrote:
>Note, when a digital camera claims 6M pixels...that's in fact a flat out
>lie. It is REALLY 1.5M pixels, wi
Julian, of course it's true! I really wouldn't have said it if it wasn't
true! Do a little research and you'll find out. It's called the "Bayer
Pattern"...
I believe some of the digital camera web sites talk about this, I have seen
it "documented" on the web in a number of places.
Do let me k
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 8:40 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
>
>
> Austin - is this true? Can you show d
As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane
film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the
maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit
opening between the shutter curtains.
If, at some later date, digital sensors can be made
> As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane
> film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the
> maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit
> opening between the shutter curtains.
I know what you say CAN be certainly true f
Exactly!! Thanks Art - that's the sort of lateral thinking I like..
now that we're on a roll.. hey, why not microdrive the array, or use a
moving folding mirror system, or.. or...! (I'm kidding, I think - although
I claim credit for thinking of those first..) I reckon there are many ways
to
Austin Franklin wrote:
> > As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane
> > film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the
> > maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit
> > opening between the shutter curtains.
>
> I know wh
Fast sync speeds being desirable, maximum sync in any particular
design is determined by that fastest speed where entire frame is still
open at once. Another one that doesn't require an engineering degree
to understand:)
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Fast sync speeds being desirable, maximum sync in any particular
> design is determined by that fastest speed where entire frame is still
> open at once. Another one that doesn't require an engineering degree
> to understand:)
In simple terms, yes...the concept IS simple...but there may be ot
Margins are cool.
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 9:45 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
>
> > Fast sync speeds being desirable, maximum sync in any par
"B.Rumary" wrote:
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> > > As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane
> > > film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the
> > > maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit
> > > opening between the shu
Austin Franklin wrote:
>>As many people probably realize, in a typical rear curtain/focal plane
>>film cameras (as most 35mm SLRs are), any shutter speed beyond the
>>maximum flash synch shutter speed exposes the film via a moving slit
>>opening between the shutter curtains.
>>
>
SKID Photography wrote:
>
> I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a
short duration. It has been my experience
> that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second
exposure and almost any brand electronic
> flash will yield very different film exp
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> SKID Photography wrote:
>
> >
> > I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a
> short duration. It has been my experience
> > that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second
> exposure and almost any brand electronic
> > flash w
> As a result of the continuing and escalating acrimony between Austin and
> myself, and his incessant nitpicking of my postings,
I either question you, or point out you're mistaken, missing
something...whatever...and you call it nitpicking. This is entirely a
cop-out, Arthur. If you were able
SKID Photography wrote:
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> > SKID Photography wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think you will find that very few, if any, flashes are of such a
> > short duration. It has been my experience
> > > that the difference between, a 250th, 125th and 60th of a second
> > exposure an
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
> "B.Rumary" wrote:
>
> > Austin Franklin wrote:
> > > > As many people probably realize, in a typical rear
curtain/focal plane
> > > > film
rences at shutter
speeds 1/250 or slower where ambient light isn't a factor.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: SKID Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI
> "B.R
> I thought the longest flash durations were in the neighborhood of
> 1/500th sec. I don't recall seeing exposure differences at shutter
> speeds 1/250 or slower where ambient light isn't a factor.
It takes "some" time for the flash to actually fire...and I would also guess
different types of fl
SKID Photography wrote:
> Try taking 3 different photos (Poaloids will do), at a 60th, 125th
and 250th of a second. Will will see that
> there will be a significant exposrue difference between them.
>
> As far as 'spec' go, this would not b the first time that
manufacturers fudged them.
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> SKID Photography wrote:
>
> > Try taking 3 different photos (Poaloids will do), at a 60th, 125th
> and 250th of a second. Will will see that
> > there will be a significant exposrue difference between them.
> >
> > As far as 'spec' go, this would not b the first time
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
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 notice
>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
> >> 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 file
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 norma
"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
> 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 f
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 equiva
"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 curr
"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 t
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL 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 ditherin
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 impa
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 an
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 shoul
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, whateve
"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 hea
>
> "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
"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 usefu
> "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
"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 an
> "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
> informa
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:
> > Wh
> 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 t
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?
>>
>
> http://www.epson.com.au/products/home_and_offi
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 g
I'm using a HP 722C right now, and I actually get pretty good results
from it, although it's only 300dpi. I would like whatever I get next
to be a significant improvement. Do I need to go "all the way" with
Epson to get that?
-
My 'previous' printer
"Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
"Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
I just wish I could buy printers at prices as cheap as in the US. I
understand about d
I think the model many of the major multinational high tech companies
use is to get their R&D 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 i
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 m
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..
>..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 explain...a
> 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
> 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 suspecte
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.
Harv
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
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 th
> Very simply, grain, or dye clouds are predetermined in their location
> and shape and are not relocated by picture content.
What about development?
ECTED]]On Behalf Of SKID Photography
> > Sent: Sunday, October 28, 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 i
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 m
> 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?
> >
>
> Also, some developing techniques can somewhat alter the shape or size of
> the dye c
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 t
> 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)
Harvey wrote:
> suspect that there comes a point where one has to
> realize that unfortunately, with some people, 'you
> can lead a horse to water...'
It works both ways, Harvey.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
> Austin wrote:
> >Now that's an odd thing to do...claim a pixel has nothing to do with
> >physics... I don't know about your scanner, but mine is not Gnostic.
>
> *sigh* As I tried to explain earlier, Austin, *you* are talking
> about scanner
> pixels, and I am not. That's why you can't see the
93 matches
Mail list logo