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:
> > 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
14 matches
Mail list logo
