Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]john@pinkheadedbug.com (Johnny Deadman)11/2/0010:24 AM > on 2/11/00 9:12 am, Birkey, Duane at dbirkey@hcjb.org.ec wrote: > > > In the one I originally snipped it and part of that is below.....it appeared > > Erwin was saying it to be at least 1920 x 2880.... But is he then saying > > that it is then needs to be multiplied by 4 or 7680x11520 to get the 40 lp > > resolution he was talking about??? > > Ha ha!! The confusion spreads... it's all part of a cunning plan!!! It seems to me that almost everyone is correct in their mathematical, digital forrays as they relate to the point that they wish to make. But they are not finding agreement in the "for what end use" arena. I would find it most interesting, and useful, to have this digital discussion (whether digital capture [meaning chip or scanning cameras] or the scanning of film by desktop scanners, Kodak PhotoCD services or high-end scanning services) move away from mathematical/engineering/optical theory into actual working methods for Digital Print Production of Photographs. For those of us who actually do this work, PhotoShop does the math automatically. Plug in the image size and resolution and you'll get the pixel dimension and file size. It feels much more useful for a working photographer to let me know that s/he, "scanned a 35mm, NPS 160, Leica 35mm 1.4 wide open negative, on an X scanner, at Y resolution and made a print, at size A, using B printer, C inks (if an inkjet printer), on D paper and here's how I'd describe the results." Rather than to throw numbers around in theoretical space. No offense intended. I truly believe that you're all correct within your own contexts. But I crave practical, useable information in these regards (the digital equivalent of xtol at 1:2, 13min @ 68, delta 100, etc). George