Leaf chasing 'blad - 50 Mpix MF DSLR announced

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

For that matter, the camera isn't made by Leaf, either. It's made by
Franke
& Heidecke, recognized as "Rolleiflex" at other points in history,
hence the
use of lenses compatible with the Rolleiflex 6008i, their previous
generation camera. It wouldn't take much study on your part to gain
an understanding of this, rather than post more misinformation.

Uhm... Rolleiflex goes with the Rollei company, the direct descendant
of Franke and Heidecke, and a company that still exists today.
Rollei no longer make Rolleiflex cameras (or do they still?).

Perhaps that depends on how loosely one uses the term "make"... ;-)

What I was getting at is that Franke and Heidecke did make Rolleiflex
cameras, and that explains the compatibility between the Leaf/Sinar/Hy6
cameras and the Rolleiflex 6008i lenses.

But the Franke and Heidecke company of today, the engineering company
do. They also produce the Sinar/Leaf thing.
Yet they are neither Rollei nor the Franke and Heidecke of
yesteryears. Should therefor not be "recognized as".

Hmmm. This smacks of the pedantry of the "dpi" discussion. ;-)

Certainly, there is a very complicated history to F&H, but I don't think
that owners of (dare I say "most"?) Rolleiflex cameras would "recognize"
such subtle differences between F&H and Rollei. If anything, more people
might "recognize" Rollei than F&H. ;-)

--
Neil

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

____ wrote:
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.

Actually, when you bring the image into Photoshop, it will report both x by
y pixels and the resolution in ppi. Since dpi has been historically
associated with ppi because the application of the terms is identical, there
is no valid reason for confusion, and even less for the misinformation that
is being presented in this thread. Dot gain is a non-issue w/r/t the ppi (or
dpi) of the image, and neither cameras nor scanners capture "dots" in any
case.

So your point is? Very enlightening if dot gain is a non issue and
you had a printer that bleed all the colors into one big dot per inch
would you buy it (I think not)...likewise how about a camera that
captured a single pixel as big as the sensor?

One would think the designers of the printers are counting the dots
based on a grid and how much their ink spreads, at the base of that grid
is math and one top of that the over lay of pixel instructions given by
the file.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

____ wrote:

I will add that the phrase: I, for one "R" hard working, is a plural use

You is perfectly right. We should not have made those mistake.
But i is certain that will not be our last.

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
____ wrote:

I will add that the phrase: I, for one "R" hard working, is a plural use

You is perfectly right. We should not have made those mistake.
But i is certain that will not be our last.

You be forgiven. Conditionally.

s

--
john mcwilliams

John McWilliams wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"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.

Well, as I hope you've seen by now, it wasn't wrong, and if you think
using correct terminology is pedantic, so be it.

Yes, DPI is used a lot in scanning, but the results are always pixels,
expressed as ppi.

Clear now?

Not really. Pixels per inch (ppi) has no meaning that isn't communicated
equally well as dpi. Both describe an abstraction that has nothing to do
with the image itself, as a digital image only contains a matrix of pixels
that have no size. So, one is left with the intention of the term(s), and
that is to imply a certain possible resolution when converting that image
for output.

Since the use of images for offset print media necessitates their conversion
into "dots", and as that use predates digital images by well over a century,
it is not at all surprising nor confusing that the terminology was carried
over to digital images used for print. Indeed, the first folks that needed
to know such things about a digital image were offset printers, most of whom
had no clue as to what a "pixel" was at the time, so talking to them about
"ppi" would have been a poor communication, at best.

In short, anyone with a history of using images for print is likely to use
these terms interchangeably (for other important reasons as well), and those
who need to know such things won't be confused by that usage.

--
Neil

Neil Gould wrote:
Q.G. de Bakker wrote:

So why not try to set this "dpi" thing straight too?

Toward what end? ;-)

Many think that there is something important about, for example 300 ppi, and
I disagree. OTOH, there *is* something important about "dpi". ;-)

Both terms are important! Why one might use them correctly even when it
makes no difference to him or her is that other, lesser beings, or those
who are learning, can benefit from good usage of terminology. It does
facilitate learning.

Then there are those who will maintain that an image should be sent to
their Epson printer at exactly 360 ppi. Or that they 'know' the precise
'native resolution' the printer driver works best at, in ppi, so that
the best configuration of dots gets put down on paper. So then they set
the best dpi setting in the printer driver.

--
john mcwilliams

Neil Gould wrote:

Use a different scanner and that same image can have other pixel matrix
parameters, ergo, ppi is an abstraction that has nothing to do with the
image itself.

Of course it has.
It determines what the yet still not existing image will be.
The original is x inches wide, the scanner scans with y ppi, the image will
be x*y pixels wide. No more, no less, exactly that.
How's that something that has nothing to do with the image itself???

A print consists of dots of ink, thrown, or transferred onto a bit of
paper. There too the machinery involved and technique it uses is
setting limits to what the picture it produces can be. It has very
much to do with the image itself.

This process has only to do with the conversion of an image into what
should
be considered a representation of the original image (for many reasons).

What?

It has to do with what the image on paper will and will not be.
Sure it is an representation of another image. So?
It's the image the entire printing process is working to create. If not
important, because only a secondary image, why bother at all?

But however you may think about a print, this is the only context in which
DPI really makes sense.


However... the incorrect usage of both terms is already so widespread
that...

It won't confuse anybody that needs to know. ;-)

Nor the many others, who, not knowing there is a difference, treat the terms
as if there is no difference. ;-) .

Wait a second. When I press the MLU button, the mirror stays up (locks)
until something resets it. There is no obligation to *ever* "release"
anything other than the MLU, and then only if you want the mirror to
return
to its previous position. So, I'm very interested in hearing your
rationale
for calling the MLU function a mirror "pre-release" function.

It's in the "until something resets it" bit.
Only a few cameras out of many offer as that 'something' you deciding it is
time to let the mirror come down again.
In most, the mirror 'locks up' only until the camera is wound after the very
first exposure made since the mirror was 'locked up'.
Yet people always (!) talk about "MLU" when all they have is pre-release.
Makes you wonder, if that should be called "lock up", what true lock up
should be called.

So why not try to set this "dpi" thing straight too?

Toward what end? ;-)

To set it straight. What else?
;-)

Many think that there is something important about, for example 300 ppi,
and
I disagree. OTOH, there *is* something important about "dpi". ;-)

And about ppi.

Another thing that needs correcting, eradicating even: people talking about
image file sizes as if it is a measure of anything but image file size. Such
complete silliness...

In article ,
"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote:

Another thing that needs correcting, eradicating even: people talking about
image file sizes as if it is a measure of anything but image file size. Such
complete silliness...

I can make a 100 MPX image of a single DPI :^)

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

Neil Gould wrote:

Because, in your example, the image in question is in the film, and ppi
has
no meaning to that image.

No, Neil. There is another image too.
The one that is being created in the scanning proces.
And as said before, it matters a lot for that image.

Because one wants to have copies of the original image. However, that is
not
an issue of ppi, is it?

No.
It's a matter where dpi makes sense.
And where the difference between ppi and dpi (and the fault in using both
expressions as meaning one and the same thing) is evident.

Suppose that copy of the image will be presented on
a large screen? One pixel on that screen could be several inches across.
Same image, same readout in the image editor, but, what is the meaning of
ppi in that context?

Yes. Let begin to suppose all kinds of scenarios, and see if, and if so how,
ppi make sense in any one of them.

But sticking to your "suppose": as long as the monitor has a fixed size, and
the 'resolution' of the display is that too, there is not only a ppi, but
since a single pixel on screen is composed of three colour dots, also a dpi.

But however you may think about a print, this is the only context in
which DPI really makes sense.

On this, we agree. It is a quality of a printed representation of the
image.

I don't anymore.
That dot-pitch of monitors also is a dpi, which really makes sense.
;-).

So, you aren't arguing that there is not a MLU function, but that some
cameras lack one (btw, every manual SLR I have has MLU)? That sounds like
a
reason to add a term, not eliminate one.

So who was trying to eliminate a term???

Maybe - quite probable, even - that's why terms get used in ways they should
not: people don't bother to read, and understand, properly.
Now that also makes me want to ask you what cameras you have that have a
true lock up...
;-)

I disagree. OTOH, there *is* something important about "dpi". ;-)

And about ppi.

And, the importance beyond some approximation of size for use in a
particluar context is...? Pshaw! The important number is the size of the
pixel matrix, as from that one can compute such things as interpolation
values and image size.

All depends on context, Neil.
When i want to have a "pixel matrix", as you call it, to do things to, it
would be nice to know that i get one that measures more than 2x2 pixels when
scanning a 2.25x2.25" negative.

PPI are indeed very important.

So are DPI.

And they are not the same.

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

Not really. Pixels per inch (ppi) has no meaning that isn't
communicated equally well as dpi. Both describe an abstraction that
has nothing to do with the image itself, as a digital image only
contains a matrix of pixels that have no size.

Not quite the image itself, no. That only has pixels.

But with the processes of scanning and printing.

As I did go on to explain, but was snipped.

A scanner is able to produce only a certain number of pixels per unit
of length or width.

The pixel size of the image is limited/determined by that.
So the PPI of a scanner has indeed something to do with the image.
But only until it is scanned.

Use a different scanner and that same image can have other pixel matrix
parameters, ergo, ppi is an abstraction that has nothing to do with the
image itself.

A print consists of dots of ink, thrown, or transferred onto a bit of
paper. There too the machinery involved and technique it uses is
setting limits to what the picture it produces can be. It has very
much to do with the image itself.

This process has only to do with the conversion of an image into what should
be considered a representation of the original image (for many reasons).

Whereas a pixel is a pixel, a dot is not a pixel. How much dots make
up a pixel is determined by the print technology.

So PPI and DPI are not (!) interchangeable.

I am saying that the usage won't confuse anybody that needs to know, and I
explained why the history of the usage supports this claim. Of course, the
terms describe two different things, one of which has no meaning because
pixels have no dimensions (might as well be talking about pixels per ounce),
and the other is only relevant to a specific representation of the image as
dictated by factors external to the image. In short, the term ppi is an
abstraction that merely serves to communicate an approximation of
resolution.

However... the incorrect usage of both terms is already so widespread
that...

It won't confuse anybody that needs to know. ;-)

I, for one, are hard working trying to irradicate the use of "mirror
lock up" when pre-release is meant. And would you believe it, signs
are beginning to show that people take notice!

Wait a second. When I press the MLU button, the mirror stays up (locks)
until something resets it. There is no obligation to *ever* "release"
anything other than the MLU, and then only if you want the mirror to return
to its previous position. So, I'm very interested in hearing your rationale
for calling the MLU function a mirror "pre-release" function.

So why not try to set this "dpi" thing straight too?

Toward what end? ;-)

Many think that there is something important about, for example 300 ppi, and
I disagree. OTOH, there *is* something important about "dpi". ;-)

--
Neil