Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!sun-barr!newstop!sun!concertina!fiddler
From: fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Vector & Jaggies
Message-ID: <131687@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 12 Feb 90 19:06:20 GMT
References: <02254.AA02254@sosaria>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Lines: 32

In article <02254.AA02254@sosaria>, wizard@sosaria.UUCP (Chris Brand) writes:
> 
> You're right. But even if you have true vector output devices (like a
> Montage FR1 slide writer) you are still limited - the best film resolution is
> about 3000x3000 points (Kodak Ektachrome). But who cares if you're limited
> to THAT resolution? :-)

I assume that you're talking about 1" x 1" piece of Ektachrome...(we'll ignore
the fact that film resolution is more typically measured in terms of line pairs
resolved per millimeter, measured at something like 50% (or 70% or 80%...)
contrast.)

Get a bigger negative, and you need more points.  (Which is why I'm looking for
a view camera again.  35mm *used* to be good enough.)

There are several films that can beat the daylights out of Ektachrome (not to
mention having better color characteristics.  Most of them being non-Kodak
products. Ahem. ), such as Kodachrome 25, or any number of astrophotographic
or microfilm emulsions.  Two or three or more times the resolution.

On the other hand, Ektachrome does the job just fine for a lot of people.

Just how low an image resolution is effectively indistinguishable from
"perfect".  (Sit back and watch the flames burn brightly. :} )

And remember that what *used* to be better than adequate will become unacceptable
as people's expectations increase.

------------
"...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise
anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear
and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..."   Plato, _Phaedrus_