8x10 clobbers digital

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:26:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

I've seen the comparisons. 4x5 has been equalled by digital, but not 8x10.

https://petapixel.com/2020/03/16/8x1...#disqus_thread


if I remember right, "regular" film is "somewhere" around 3,000 to
4,000 grains/inch


--
Dale - https://www.dalekelly.org/

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:50:02 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, 16 March 2020 22:36:05 UTC-4, dale wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:26:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

I've seen the comparisons. 4x5 has been equalled by digital, but not 8x10.

https://petapixel.com/2020/03/16/8x1...#disqus_thread


if I remember right, "regular" film is "somewhere" around 3,000 to
4,000 grains/inch

It's actually grain clumps that form the resolution, part of the reason why smaller format film files show such large files when scanned are that the grain clumps are imaged as 2D physical entities and they produce a large MP file, giving the illusion of high resolution when (for e.g.) 35mm film is actually about 11MP in-terms of resolution.

am I right that the eye resolves 150 lpi and considering Nyquist, to
avoid banding, all the print needs to have is 300 lpi ?

--
Dale - https://www.dalekelly.org/

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 23:37:48 -0400, dale wrote:

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:50:02 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, 16 March 2020 22:36:05 UTC-4, dale wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:26:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

I've seen the comparisons. 4x5 has been equalled by digital, but not 8x10.

https://petapixel.com/2020/03/16/8x1...#disqus_thread


if I remember right, "regular" film is "somewhere" around 3,000 to
4,000 grains/inch

It's actually grain clumps that form the resolution, part of the reason why smaller format film files show such large files when scanned are that the grain clumps are imaged as 2D physical entities and they produce a large MP file, giving the illusion of high resolution when (for e.g.) 35mm film is actually about 11MP in-terms of resolution.

am I right that the eye resolves 150 lpi and considering Nyquist, to
avoid banding, all the print needs to have is 300 lpi ?

note ... this is not the printer dpi, the printer needs more dpi to
form the rosette pattern of each lpi


--
Dale - https://www.dalekelly.org/

On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 10:08:59 -0400, dale wrote:

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 23:37:48 -0400, dale wrote:

On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:50:02 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Monday, 16 March 2020 22:36:05 UTC-4, dale wrote:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 19:26:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

I've seen the comparisons. 4x5 has been equalled by digital, but not 8x10.

https://petapixel.com/2020/03/16/8x1...#disqus_thread


if I remember right, "regular" film is "somewhere" around 3,000 to
4,000 grains/inch

It's actually grain clumps that form the resolution, part of the reason why smaller format film files show such large files when scanned are that the grain clumps are imaged as 2D physical entities and they produce a large MP file, giving the illusion of high resolution when (for e.g.) 35mm film is actually about 11MP in-terms of resolution.

am I right that the eye resolves 150 lpi and considering Nyquist, to
avoid banding, all the print needs to have is 300 lpi ?

note ... this is not the printer dpi, the printer needs more dpi to
form the rosette pattern of each lpi

Epson uses 360 dpi or multiples thereof.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens