> 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)
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
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 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
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 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 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..
>..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
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 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
> Very simply, grain, or dye clouds are predetermined in their location
> and shape and are not relocated by picture content.
What about development?
"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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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 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 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
>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
> "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
"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:
> > 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:
> 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:
> >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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
"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
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
> 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
"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
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
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
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
> >> 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
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
45 matches
Mail list logo
