If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
"John McWilliams" wrote in message news Alan Browne wrote: Scott W wrote: On Sep 10, 10:57 am, Alan Browne wrote: Blinky the Shark wrote: Alan Browne wrote: Hasselblad are not alone with a 50 Mpix MF... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08...tus_10_7_6.asp... Maximum image file size: 345MP. IIIeeeeeee! When I scan MF film I get near 500 Mpix per image. But I bet the digital cameras (Leaf or Blad) give cleaner images... You must mean 500 MBtyes, not MPix. a frame from a 6x9 camera scanned at 4000 ppi would give you about 125 MPix. You would have to be scanning at 8000 ppi to get to 500 MP. Quite correct, I meant Mbytes; However, 4000 dpi (56mm / 25.4 * 4000 = ~8800) @ 16 b/col So, 8800^2 pixels for about 460 Mbyte @ 48 bits/pixel. Last sentence: pixels. Previous one: dpi: Disconnect! Are you purposely using that misnomer to prove something, or do you still not get it that it can make a difference to others' understanding, no matter how perfectly you get it? Dpi is a standard term here, always has been, and no one with half a brain has any problem understanding it. Google _"Nikon 8000" dpi_, and the first 20 pages (of the 1,600 that show up) include from Luminous Landscape, photo.net, Apple, photo-i, kenrockwell, and imaging-resource. Google _"drum scanner" dpi_. You'll see 12,000 pages telling you everything you need to know about drum scanning. (That almost SIX times as many hits as for _"drum scanner" ppi_.) If you can't understand what is meant by dpi in this standard usage/meaning, you really shouldn't be posting in a photo forum; your mind just isn't up to the task. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message news Alan Browne wrote: Scott W wrote: On Sep 10, 10:57 am, Alan Browne wrote: Blinky the Shark wrote: Alan Browne wrote: Hasselblad are not alone with a 50 Mpix MF... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08...tus_10_7_6.asp... Maximum image file size: 345MP. IIIeeeeeee! When I scan MF film I get near 500 Mpix per image. But I bet the digital cameras (Leaf or Blad) give cleaner images... You must mean 500 MBtyes, not MPix. a frame from a 6x9 camera scanned at 4000 ppi would give you about 125 MPix. You would have to be scanning at 8000 ppi to get to 500 MP. Quite correct, I meant Mbytes; However, 4000 dpi (56mm / 25.4 * 4000 = ~8800) @ 16 b/col So, 8800^2 pixels for about 460 Mbyte @ 48 bits/pixel. Last sentence: pixels. Previous one: dpi: Disconnect! Are you purposely using that misnomer to prove something, or do you still not get it that it can make a difference to others' understanding, no matter how perfectly you get it? Dpi is a standard term here, always has been, and no one with half a brain has any problem understanding it. Google _"Nikon 8000" dpi_, and the first 20 pages (of the 1,600 that show up) include from Luminous Landscape, photo.net, Apple, photo-i, kenrockwell, and imaging-resource. Google _"drum scanner" dpi_. You'll see 12,000 pages telling you everything you need to know about drum scanning. (That almost SIX times as many hits as for _"drum scanner" ppi_.) If you can't understand what is meant by dpi in this standard usage/meaning, you really shouldn't be posting in a photo forum; your mind just isn't up to the task. I am quite surprised by this, David J., coming from one who is generally solid and doesn't seem to have a dog in this fight. DPI is a valid term, critical in scanning and in printing; I've never suggested remotely that it wasn't. I use the term when applicable, but not when it isn't. I am not googling pages which may or may not use the term correctly. However, digital images are defined in pixels, and PPI, when we're getting ready to print from digital files. Yes, the scanner picked up so many dots, and hence, so many dpi. Yes, the printer will lay down dots of various sizes and colors to produce a print. In between there are pixels. In digital photography, one starts with pixels, and stays with pixels, until the printer driver or RIP do their thing. Really, not hard to understand nor distinguish. -- John McWilliams I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
"John McWilliams" wrote: If you can't understand what is meant by dpi in this standard usage/meaning, you really shouldn't be posting in a photo forum; your mind just isn't up to the task. I am quite surprised by this, David J., coming from one who is generally solid and doesn't seem to have a dog in this fight. My dog in this fight is that I object to stupid obnoxious pedantic lecturing, especially when it's basically wrong. As it is in this case, since Alan was talking about scanning, were dpi is the standard term. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: Scott W wrote: On Sep 10, 10:57 am, Alan Browne wrote: Blinky the Shark wrote: Alan Browne wrote: Hasselblad are not alone with a 50 Mpix MF... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08...tus_10_7_6.asp... Maximum image file size: 345MP. IIIeeeeeee! When I scan MF film I get near 500 Mpix per image. But I bet the digital cameras (Leaf or Blad) give cleaner images... You must mean 500 MBtyes, not MPix. a frame from a 6x9 camera scanned at 4000 ppi would give you about 125 MPix. You would have to be scanning at 8000 ppi to get to 500 MP. Quite correct, I meant Mbytes; However, 4000 dpi (56mm / 25.4 * 4000 = ~8800) @ 16 b/col So, 8800^2 pixels for about 460 Mbyte @ 48 bits/pixel. Last sentence: pixels. Previous one: dpi: Disconnect! Are you purposely using that misnomer to prove something, or do you still not get it that it can make a difference to others' understanding, no matter how perfectly you get it? "" Super COOLSCAN 9000 ED With its Nikon ED-glass lenses, the SUPER COOLSCAN 9000 ED delivers superior results. It handles multiple film formats, and offers a 4000 dpi-true optical resolution. "" http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Ni...N-9000-ED.html "" Professional-quality digital images from their film slides and negatives. With 5400 dpi resolution, advanced lens optics, simple scanning and image-processing procedures, plus USB or FireWire interfaces, creating beautiful digital scans is "quick as a click." "" http://yhst-75103383501248.stores.ya...olta-5400.html Getting through? -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
Scott W wrote:
On Sep 11, 10:49 am, Alan Browne wrote: Scott W wrote: On Sep 10, 10:57 am, Alan Browne wrote: Blinky the Shark wrote: Alan Browne wrote: Hasselblad are not alone with a 50 Mpix MF... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08...tus_10_7_6.asp... Maximum image file size: 345MP. IIIeeeeeee! When I scan MF film I get near 500 Mpix per image. But I bet the digital cameras (Leaf or Blad) give cleaner images... You must mean 500 MBtyes, not MPix. a frame from a 6x9 camera scanned at 4000 ppi would give you about 125 MPix. You would have to be scanning at 8000 ppi to get to 500 MP. Quite correct, I meant Mbytes; However, 4000 dpi (56mm / 25.4 * 4000 = ~8800) @ 16 b/col So, 8800^2 pixels for about 460 Mbyte @ 48 bits/pixel. What is interesting is that the information content in that scan is likely to be on the order of 20MB or so, the rest is a combination of noise and lack of compression. You're exaggerating by a large margin (again). While the scanner is 16 bit/color, there is not that much signal, but there is likely 12 - 13 bits after tranmissivity and scanner noise. While there may or may not be 4000 dpi in the film (which I don't accept) it is much closer to 4000 than 2000. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
John McWilliams wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote: "John McWilliams" wrote in message news Alan Browne wrote: Scott W wrote: On Sep 10, 10:57 am, Alan Browne wrote: Blinky the Shark wrote: Alan Browne wrote: Hasselblad are not alone with a 50 Mpix MF... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08...tus_10_7_6.asp... Maximum image file size: 345MP. IIIeeeeeee! When I scan MF film I get near 500 Mpix per image. But I bet the digital cameras (Leaf or Blad) give cleaner images... You must mean 500 MBtyes, not MPix. a frame from a 6x9 camera scanned at 4000 ppi would give you about 125 MPix. You would have to be scanning at 8000 ppi to get to 500 MP. Quite correct, I meant Mbytes; However, 4000 dpi (56mm / 25.4 * 4000 = ~8800) @ 16 b/col So, 8800^2 pixels for about 460 Mbyte @ 48 bits/pixel. Last sentence: pixels. Previous one: dpi: Disconnect! Are you purposely using that misnomer to prove something, or do you still not get it that it can make a difference to others' understanding, no matter how perfectly you get it? Dpi is a standard term here, always has been, and no one with half a brain has any problem understanding it. Google _"Nikon 8000" dpi_, and the first 20 pages (of the 1,600 that show up) include from Luminous Landscape, photo.net, Apple, photo-i, kenrockwell, and imaging-resource. Google _"drum scanner" dpi_. You'll see 12,000 pages telling you everything you need to know about drum scanning. (That almost SIX times as many hits as for _"drum scanner" ppi_.) If you can't understand what is meant by dpi in this standard usage/meaning, you really shouldn't be posting in a photo forum; your mind just isn't up to the task. I am quite surprised by this, David J., coming from one who is generally solid and doesn't seem to have a dog in this fight. DPI is a valid term, critical in scanning and in printing; I've never So, when I used dpi, above to describe how many pixels I get off of a film scanned at so many dpi, you still complain? C'mon John! Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
In article Hwiyk.1069$jE1.688@trnddc03,
JT's Keeper wrote: John McWilliams wrote: However, digital images are defined in pixels, and PPI, when we're getting ready to print from digital files. Yes, the scanner picked up so many dots, and hence, so many dpi. Yes, the printer will lay down dots of various sizes and colors to produce a print. In between there are pixels. In digital photography, one starts with pixels, and stays with pixels, until the printer driver or RIP do their thing. Really, not hard to understand nor distinguish. Then why are you being so anal over terminology usage when others with the same or better understanding post/follow-up in these threads? - JT notes that you've been barking up this tree for awhile now...and it isn't the first time that David J. Littleboy has called you on it. Because,..... the terminology is correct and the usage is flat out wrong. Some brilliant software engineer substituted DPI for PPI many years ago when referring to what one gets when one creates a digital image. The confusion came from what ink jets and output devices do versus what the input devices do. Anyone with basic printing management schooling should be able to tell you this is fact. My humble print management 101 course taught me this back in 1987. Otherwise lets say your camera takes 50 million dots per inch, thats a very specific measurement with little room for error Seeing how your quality is being determine by paper and ink versus the virtual image the camera or scanner is in fact creating. DPI has an established size based on each paper type and the bleed that the dots form on the paper. That why the ink jet's performance changes depending on the paper your selecting. Since pixels can be any mathematical size you can fit a lot more or a lot less to an inch, with paper and ink its only so good. It's also why a digital image output as a photographic print like a Lambda has a much higher apparent resolution than a ink jet, there is no dye spread. -- Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote: So, when I used dpi, above to describe how many pixels I get off of a film scanned at so many dpi, you still complain? C'mon John! Cheers, Alan When you bring the scanned image into photoshop the dimensions say (x) pixels by (y) pixels not x dpi by y dpi..... thats a function of your printer and unfortunately your scanner software. -- Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
Scott W wrote:
What is interesting is that the information content in that scan is likely to be on the order of 20MB or so, the rest is a combination of noise and lack of compression. [...] "Information content", "the rest" "lack of compression"??? Time to set things straight, i guess. ;-) Uncompressed information is information, all the same. In fact, it is relevant information, pure information, image information. Whereas you need additional information, irrelevant, non-image information, information about the compression algorithm, to compress and (more importantly) decompress compressed information. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced
Alan Browne wrote:
Getting through? You can also find references on the web, some presented in a quite credible way, saying that the dark side of the moon is in perpetual darkness, hence the name. The usage is incorrect, also in the cited sources. That's quite true, no matter how you look at it. What's also true is that it is widely accepted. So it's too late to make a fuzz about it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D90 PRO announced. 12 Mpix 20D killer | Walt Hanks | Digital SLR Cameras | 56 | April 12th 05 08:43 AM |
Nikon D90 PRO announced. 12 Mpix 20D killer | Walt Hanks | Digital Photography | 89 | April 2nd 05 09:27 AM |
Nikon D90 PRO announced. 12 Mpix 20D killer | Walt Hanks | 35mm Photo Equipment | 79 | April 2nd 05 09:27 AM |
Nikon D90 PRO announced. 12 Mpix 20D killer | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 0 | April 1st 05 06:22 AM |
Nikon D90 PRO announced. 12 Mpix 20D killer | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | April 1st 05 06:22 AM |