richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/15/88)
In article <8651@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> doug@eris.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes: > > >Maybe it's just a question of terminology? I tend to think of grains in >film as being more or less the same as pixels. It would seem that you >consider that inappropriate. No problem. Uhhh, I have a problem with that. I used to work for a company that did work with color film recorders and it was generally accepted that Ektachrome 64 ASA film max'd out at about 5000 dpi. Of course Genigraphics will sell you an 8000 line film recorder, but you need 4 x 5 flim to USE that kind of resolution. Disclaimer: No, i never used a microscope and *counted* the d's per i. Another Disclaimer: We used those wretched Polaroid Palette's so this was hardly an issue for us. -- Obnoxious Font Grad Studnet richard@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard
doug@eris (Doug Merritt) (04/23/88)
In article <3346@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes:
:I used to work for a company that did work with color film recorders
:and it was generally accepted that Ektachrome 64 ASA film max'd out
:at about 5000 dpi.
Ok. So what's the implied comment???
Doug Merritt doug@mica.berkeley.edu (ucbvax!mica!doug)
or ucbvax!unisoft!certes!doug
or sun.com!cup.portal.com!doug-merrittrichard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/24/88)
In article <9102@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> doug@eris.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes: >In article <3346@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >:I used to work for a company that did work with color film recorders >:and it was generally accepted that Ektachrome 64 ASA film max'd out >:at about 5000 dpi. > >Ok. So what's the implied comment??? > The implied comment, Doug, is those socks dont go with that shirt you're wearing. The explicit comment was somebody said film didn't have pixels, it was continuous. It's not. I merely quantified it. Perhaps thats not what was being said, but that's what came across. -- "They spent all night staring down at the lights of L.A." heh richard@gryphon.CTS.COM rutgers!marque!gryphon!richard
doug@eris (Doug Merritt) (04/25/88)
In article <3543@gryphon.CTS.COM> richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >The implied comment, Doug, is those socks dont go with that shirt >you're wearing. Thanks! It's the latest look... >The explicit comment was somebody said film didn't have pixels, it >was continuous. It's not. I merely quantified it. Yeah, I had *thought* that Bryan was talking about a continuous media, so I was pointing out that even film has grains. We eventually established that reductio ad absurdum was inappropriate for the topic at hand, and quit arguing about things like whether pixels are exactly the same as film grains or not. (You can make points on either side of this terminology question, but it's a moot point.) In case anyone cares, holographic film can record up to 5000 line pairs per millimeter. If a display were implemented using regularly spaced pixels with the same resolution, that'd be 10,000 pixels per millimeter, or 254,000 pixels per inch. So a 10 inch by 10 inch holographic display would require 2.5M by 2.5M pixels. About 6.5 trillion pixels altogether. Let's see, a 1000 Mip processor could update a screen in about... Oh, you don't care about this after all? Never mind. Doug Merritt doug@mica.berkeley.edu (ucbvax!mica!doug) or ucbvax!unisoft!certes!doug or sun.com!cup.portal.com!doug-merritt
NETOPRHM@NCSUVM.BITNET (Hal Meeks) (04/26/88)
Please don't try comparing film to video. Yes, Richard's right. Film
does have an amazingly high resolution compared to video. This is why
I still use super 8 for some things (mostly low speed black and white).
It looks astoundingly good to someone who works with industrial VHS
a lot.
And 16mm? Unreal. 35mm? Wow. 70mm? Is this reality? :-)
--hal