would aerial film have far more resolution than standard film?
The one kodak has listed sayd 400 lp/mm
PS. Kewl picture, but scanned at 1,000 dpi it gives 16 Mpix. Saccning at 4,000 dpi would give 64 Mpix (or 256)?
Printable View
would aerial film have far more resolution than standard film?
The one kodak has listed sayd 400 lp/mm
PS. Kewl picture, but scanned at 1,000 dpi it gives 16 Mpix. Saccning at 4,000 dpi would give 64 Mpix (or 256)?
Rob--the car on the left? Yeah, that's actually a tire repair place on that corner.
Titrisol--At 1000 ppi, you get a 16 MB jpeg level 8 file, not 16 Mpix. 8000x10000 pixels=80 Mpix. At 4000 ppi you would get 1.28 Gpix.
I wonder how it would look on a Tango drum scanner at 10,000 dpi!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
On the West Coast Imaging site they give the impression that there's not much to be gained by going beyond 5000 ppi.
Your XL image is just 3721 x 4556 Pixels (16.95 MPixels), what resolution did you use or what size of film you used.
I'm assuming 10in on the long side? so you used 460 DPI (give or take a few)
Or did you just scan a 3.2x4.5 in section?
PS.. just noticed.... Half the resolution DUH!
Quote:
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
It is an interesting approach.
I use 9x9 images everyday at work.
The quoted 4,000 dpi film is probably pan-x. It is still available from
Kodak as aerial roll film.
Their color emulsions don't have that much resolution, so it is probably
hyperbole.
The scanner that they quoted using is an excellent photogrammetric device. However, it doesnt handle the density range of negatives as well as drum/graphic arts scanners do.
The correlation to a good 8x10 neg is on point, except that this is a 9x18 image that he is using. For strong horizontal compositions it is pretty nice.
Interesting shtick - but unfortunately it is notoriety based on a unique bit of hardware rather than talent/taste.