Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!yunexus!geac!becker!pantor!richard
From: richard@pantor.UUCP (Richard Sargent)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: Digital Film Recorders
Message-ID: <66.UUL1.3#5109@pantor.UUCP>
Date: 2 May 90 15:34:43 GMT
References: <20674@versatc.versatec.COM>
Organization: Pansophic Systems Inc, Graphics Product Company
Lines: 37

> From: ritter@versatc.versatec.COM (Jack Ritter)
> Message-ID: <20674@versatc.versatec.COM>
> 
> I am considering buying a digital film recorder. I've seen 1 for 
> about $5K. It is a desk top model, with 4K lines of resolution. 
> By digital I mean: it inputs a targa file (or similar image file),
> NOT analog video. It's the Matrix Pro Color. (Matrix was recently 
> bought by Agfa). At 4K scan lines max, I can print an image sized
> up to 3500 high by 4000 wide pixels. (35mm film).


As with everything, you get what you pay for.

I am not criticizing Matrix. In fact, I quite
like their products. I have worked with their
film recorders for many years now.

However, claims of 3K x 4K, while true, are
also misleading. Our experiences have been
that addressability may be high, but resolvability
is a lot lower. I have heard claims that
low priced systems have a resolvability measure
that is about half the claimed resolution. Usually,
the spot size is considerably larger than 1/4000th
of the screen inside the camera. Very high-priced
cameras actually do have resolution and addressability
match 1:1.

What you need for your application is something that
you will have to determine. Just don't get fooled
by marketing sweet talk.

Claimer: we sell graphics systems, including
Matrix cameras as well as our own.

Richard Sargent                   Internet: richard@pantor.UUCP
Systems Analyst                   UUCP:     ...!mnetor!becker!pantor!richard