Re: Highest Resolution RGB Drum Scanner
Re: Highest Resolution RGB Drum Scanner
- Subject: Re: Highest Resolution RGB Drum Scanner
- From: Dan Lorenzini <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 00:48:11 -0700
on Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:03 email@hidden (Lee Blevins) wrote
>
I had an 8x10 foot lambda output and they showed the customer a slice
as
>
a proof. That changed the whole viewing distance.
>
>
>
I could cry foul but I need to make the customer happy.
>
That's like cutting out a postage stamp sized piece of a magazine page
and
having the customer view it with a magnifying glass. "More resolution,
please!"
Don makes this very clear,
>
You don't need any higher resolution for billboards than normal print
>
applications because required resolution is a function of viewing
angle, not
>
picture size. Even a double-page spread (64MB) is generally a
waste for
>
billboards because we tend to see less detail in a billboard than
a printed
>
magazine. This is partly because magazines don't fly by at
highway speed and
>
partly because we can hold a magazine closer than a billboard. In
other
>
words a billboard typically fills a smaller angle of view than a
double page
>
spread, hence the eye demands less information.
>
Sometimes, and educated customer is happy too. I doubt you could make a
profit
generating 300 dpi billboards.
As far as scanners go, I had started to evaluate the Imacon last year
when I
inherited a Hell 3700 in a company acquisition. Having spent 16 years in
Hell,
I knew what I had would give me top notch scans (if I was prepared to
oil mount).
Since then, I added a Nikon 4000 with an auto feeder because of the
hundreds of 35 mm stock photo scans we do for our creative staff to pick
from.
I would recommend the Nikon to most anyone doing 35 mm work (even
billboards).
The Nikon Scan software has come a long way.
Don makes another important point when he said,
>
Another way to look at it is that a 35mm transparency - even
Kodachrome(TM)
>
- contains only enough detail to justify scanning at about 3000
to 4000 ppi,
>
regardless of final output size. Any more simply starts
replicating pixels
>
optically, much the same as if the file were digitally enlarged
later in the
>
process
>
The smallest scanning aperture on the Hell Drum is 8 microns wide which,
I think,
calculates out to 1 / 3175 inches. This would mean any resolution higher
than
3175 lpi would begin to overlap the scan lines eventually resulting in
the replicating
pixels Don mentions.
Now I'm wondering what would happen if the scanning aperture was only 3
microns wide.
Dan Lorenzini