filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-22 Thread Rob Geraghty
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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-22 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-22 Thread Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
CTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:45 PM Subject: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-23 Thread Julian Robinson
;- 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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-25 Thread Wire Moore
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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-25 Thread Wire Moore
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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-25 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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.

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-25 Thread Austin Franklin
> > 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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-25 Thread Julian Robinson
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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-25 Thread Wire Moore
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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-26 Thread markthomasz
(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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-26 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-26 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-26 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-26 Thread Mark T.
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,

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-26 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-26 Thread Rob Geraghty
"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,

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-26 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-26 Thread Rob Geraghty
"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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-27 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-27 Thread Rob Geraghty
"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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-27 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-28 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-28 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-28 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-29 Thread Dave King
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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-29 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-29 Thread Julian Robinson
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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-29 Thread Austin Franklin
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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-29 Thread Austin Franklin
> -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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-29 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-29 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-30 Thread Mark T.
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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-30 Thread B.Rumary
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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-30 Thread Dave King
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]

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-30 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-30 Thread Dave King
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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-31 Thread SKID Photography
"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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-31 Thread Arthur Entlich
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. >> >

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-31 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-31 Thread SKID Photography
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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-31 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-31 Thread SKID Photography
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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-31 Thread Dave King
[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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-31 Thread SKID Photography
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

RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-31 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-11-01 Thread Arthur Entlich
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.

Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-11-01 Thread SKID Photography
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

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-22 Thread Rob Geraghty
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

filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-25 Thread Rob Geraghty
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

filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: Pixels per inch vs DPI

2001-10-28 Thread Rob Geraghty
>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

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

2001-10-22 Thread Austin Franklin
> >> 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

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

2001-10-25 Thread SKID Photography
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

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

2001-10-26 Thread Rob Geraghty
"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

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

2001-10-26 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

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

2001-10-26 Thread SKID Photography
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

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

2001-10-26 Thread Rob Geraghty
"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

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

2001-10-26 Thread Rob Geraghty
"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

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

2001-10-26 Thread Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
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

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

2001-10-26 Thread SKID Photography
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

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

2001-10-27 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

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

2001-10-27 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

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

2001-10-27 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

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

2001-10-27 Thread Rob Geraghty
"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

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

2001-10-27 Thread Austin Franklin
> > "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

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

2001-10-27 Thread Rob Geraghty
"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

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

2001-10-27 Thread Austin Franklin
> "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

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

2001-10-28 Thread Rob Geraghty
"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

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

2001-10-28 Thread Austin Franklin
> "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

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

2001-10-28 Thread SKID Photography
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

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

2001-10-29 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

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

2001-10-29 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

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

2001-10-29 Thread Ken Durling
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

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

2001-10-29 Thread Gerry Kaslowski
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

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

2001-10-29 Thread Rob Geraghty
"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

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

2001-10-29 Thread Rob Geraghty
"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

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

2001-10-29 Thread Arthur Entlich
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

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

2001-10-23 Thread Rob Geraghty
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

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

2001-10-28 Thread Rob Geraghty
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

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

2001-10-29 Thread markthomasz
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

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

2001-10-29 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

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 suspecte

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. Harv

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

2001-10-29 Thread Austin Franklin
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

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 th

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

2001-10-29 Thread Austin Franklin
> Very simply, grain, or dye clouds are predetermined in their location > and shape and are not relocated by picture content. What about development?

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

2001-10-29 Thread SKID Photography
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

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 m

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

2001-10-29 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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

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 t

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)

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

2001-10-29 Thread Rob Geraghty
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

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

2001-10-29 Thread Austin Franklin
> 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