From: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts)
Newsgroups: rec.photo
Subject: Re: Photo-CD - THE FACTS
Date: 2 Sep 92 04:23:25 GMT
Organization: Metran Technology, Tampa, Florida

tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen) writes:
: > rcoadh@kultarr.co.rmit.oz.AU (Alexander Doktorovich) writes:
: 
: >: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
: >: >Next question: "What is the resolution of the highest resolution image?"
: >: >Answer: "3072 X 2048", 24 bit color.  Yeehaaa!!!!!
: > 
: jay@metran.UUCP (Jay Ts) writes:
: > 3072 x 2048 is *great* for a computer, but compared even to the lowly
: > 35mm format, it amounts to only 85.33 pixels/mm in the 24mm x 36mm frame.
: > Since a "line" is 2 pixels wide (including the space between) this is only
: > 42.67 lines/mm.
: 
: [ ...and Jay goes on to show that this is really poor resolution compared ]
: [ to just about any 35mm film out there.  Not to mention medium format... ]
: 
: All right, I won't argue with that.  But I'd argue that it's not the intent
: of Photo CD to compete with medium format, or even with high-quality 35mm.

I see it not as a matter of competition.  My concern is that I hate to
see the storage technology become a limitation on quality.

: Realistically, what's an acceptable resolution?
:
: [some examples deleted]
:
:   - Even a magazine photo (for, say, Time or Newsweek) could, I think, cope
:     with Photo CD's resolutions, due to the limitations of the reproduction
:     process.

This is what gets me; not just Time and Newsweek, but many other professional
consumers of photography (including advertisers, book publishers, ...) are
now turning to photo stock agencies for their images.  And the stock agencies
are enthusiastic about Photo CD as a medium of distribution (although right
now, it's just for comp use).  I am very much looking forward to marketing
my photographs through a stock agency.  What if my agency decides to switch
exclusively to Photo CD?  That means my photos taken with my (unfortunately
still hypothetical :-( ) Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 micro on Technical Pan film that
would have a resolution of over 100 lines/mm would be cut down to about
40 lines/mm, and the client would be limited in their ability to enlarge
and crop to suit their needs.  Even Time and Newsweek could benefit from
the ability to enlarge a part of a 35mm frame by 25x to catch the facial
features of the terrorist, or whatever.

For the moment, I'm hoping that the stock agencies, et. al., are going to
have the sense to stay away from Photo CD until the technology matures.

As for "what is acceptable resolution", *my* answer to that is that it
should not limit the rest of the system (for *anyone*).  I realize that
I am asking for a lot, but does this fundamentally not make sense?

: And of course those last items are getting to the big benefit of Photo CD:
: you can manipulate them on the computer, and do the entire layout online.

That's great -- like I said, Photo CD has some real potential -- but I still
want high resolution!

: And the point-and-shoot user could build a slide show for his TV from his
: Photo CD pictures...

I kind of hate to pick on this line, but I do want to mention that for the
moment, it is in agreement with my view of the current Photo CD standard --
an amateur medium.

Jay Ts
Xref: sparky rec.photo:15337 gnu.misc.discuss:2866