Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/07/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > 53 lp/mm is achievable with a 2700 SPI > > scanner, ONLY if the lines were perfectly > > lined up. That's useless. > > 53 lp/mm is achievable with virtually any alignment of image > elements, at 2700 > dpi. The problem is "virtually any alignment". You can not spec a system as "almost" or "typical". You obviously don't have any experience designing electronics professionally. > If you disagree, then please indicate the exact number of lp/mm that _is_ > achievable at 2700 dpi. Of course I disagree, because your claim is wrong. It would be a range, equal to 53 lp/mm down to 1/2 that. That is standard for any digital acquisition system. Typically, acquisition systems are spec'd at only the minimum...which I said, is 1/2 that, since that is the only number the system can guarantee under all circumstances. At anything above that the detection is "unreliable". This is really really simple to understand. > > Any company who would put in their spec that their > > 2700 SPI scanner could reliably scan 53 lp/mm would > > be laughed at, and would be lying. > > Fine. What would the correct figure be, and why? 1/2 that and I've explained why. You haven't explained why, nor have you explained why my correction to your mistaken assertion is not correct. > > I guess there is some other reason CDs have a > > sample rate of 44.1kHz...in order to reliably > > capture 20kHz. > > My understanding was that the intent was to capture up to 22 kHz, > but it has > been a long time since I looked into CD design. Yeah...and isn't 44.1kHz slightly more than 22kHz? Duh. Nyquist... It applies to data acquisition of a film scanner too. > > Modest? That's quite an amorphous term. > > So is "reliable." Reliable is hardly amorphous. You're playing games here. I have given you a very clear definition of it. As I stated, it is a standard term in signal processing, and if you have any experience in signal processing, as you claim you do, you would understand what "reliable" means, and that it is a VERY specific term. You made the original claim, and you still fail to substantiate it. More wasted time...I am such a fool to engage with you in any discussion. I believe this is a game to you.