On 9/20/2016 12:43 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
It's also unclear to me how someone like you or me would get an practical
advantage from such resolution. How does one display it?
One doesn't. However, more pixels mean more bending potential. The
more pixels you have, the more distortion correction you can do
without trashing detail.
Well, sorta. With the usual edge losses from scanning, FF 35 mm film with my FS4000 gives images of about 20 MP. The
first time I noticed such distortion was when I applied PTLens to a film image. (Before I had a digital camera; and long
before they had anywhere near that resolution.)
I think I was straightening out a bridge afflicted with barrel distortion. In any case, I noticed something in the far
lower left corner. In the original scan, it was obviously soda/beer can litter. In the corrected image, it was a shiny,
unrecognizable blob. I, of course, just cloned it out, but I have since always been aware of the potential problem. And
I don't think more pickles helps much; if shape is an important characteristic of the object, it is messed up anyway.
The blob may have smoother corners, though.
It really isn't about the output, it's about the process.
Agreed, up to a point. Above enough to deliver the full resolution of the largest display size, anticipated, more
pickles are just future insurance, but don't make processing work any better. Capture sharpening and NR will be
different, but not necessarily better.
Dilly Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|