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

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.

"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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.