Scanning Photo Prints: Max Rez?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by (PeteCresswell), Feb 15, 2013.

  1. Do you always reply to posts you haven't read completely
    and didn't understand even after you worked your way through
    the post?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 26, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. What's your point? Why ascribe your problems to others?

    The significance was in fact previously stated, and you
    have added nothing but an argument that went in a circle.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Feb 27, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. [snip. Floyd won't read it again nor understand it at any time]
    Obviously YOUR point is that one doesn't need to understand
    a post to reply to it.

    As I don't see much of a chance to get you to understand
    what everyone else seems to have understood, what point is
    there in continuing to answer you.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 1, 2013
  4. It's fairly obvious that you didn't understand what was said
    to start with, and still don't.

    The fact is that a scanner cannot synchronize the scan rate
    to the data on the scanned object.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 2, 2013
  5. Yeah, and you'll be the next Pope, too. All hail Floyd!

    A single counterexample is sufficient to disprove that claim.

    Since there are no restrictions on e.g. the size of the data
    "objects" (e.g. pixel size) of the scanned objects, I'll
    simply take a 2x2 pattern on a A4 or legal paper. I'm quite
    sure even *you* will agree that a scanner is possible that
    positions and scans exactly enough for the 4 pixels. Heck,
    I've got an XY-table for my spectrometer that positions way
    more exactly than that, the limit is the aperture of the
    spectrometer not the positioning accuracy. More than 1000
    data points on an A4 paper is no problem.

    Thus your claim has been soundly disproven: a scanner *can*
    synchronize the scan rate to the data on the scanned object.

    There may be a limit above which some scanner can't position
    exactly enough and/or where the object can't be aligned exactly
    enough, but that is irrelevant, as you didn't restrict your
    claim in that direction (nor in any other direction).

    Yes, I know all this will go WHOOSH way over your head: you
    don't understand logic at all.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 2, 2013
  6. Typical of your arguments...
    Not true, but you are free to try!
    The "data object" might even change size on the same print.
    It absolutely cannot synchronize to the pixel rate of
    the print. It can't even determine what it is!

    Your example doesn't even come close to allowing a 1 to 1
    scanner sample per pixel of a scanned picture!
    Wonderful, but scanners are not able to synchronize to the
    pixel rate of the print. (And 1000 data points on an A4
    paper is pathetic compared to a 720 pixel per inch print.)
    A hugely pompous proclamation! That is a laughable
    Provide an example that actually supports you claim! But
    better, show us even one scanner that will synchronize to
    the printed pixels on a scanned picture!
    What "direction" are you talking about? What I said is that
    it cannot synchronize to the pixel rate, and that does not
    matter what direction! It cannot be positioned correctly to
    start with and it cannot determine the exact rate.
    If what you say is true, cite a scanner that does it.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 2, 2013
  7. (PeteCresswell)

    Noons Guest

    May I suggest a switch to Inuit with an Outer Mongolian accent?
    In the adequate news group: alt.kooks
    Noons, Mar 3, 2013
  8. You and Wolfgang probably both hand out there, eh? Just
    in case you don't know, there are no people in Outer
    Mongolia, or anywhere else in Asia for that matter, that
    speak Inuit.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 3, 2013
  9. (PeteCresswell)

    Noons Guest

    Noons, Mar 3, 2013
  10. [ ... doesn't do logic 101, doesn't even try to understand the
    issue at hand, just regurgitates as dogma what others presented
    once as a guideline ... ]

    There's no sense in talking to you. EOD.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 5, 2013
  11. No. Talking in tongues won't work with Floyd. Whacking with
    a clue-by-four might, but then it might sooner work for changing
    the mind of the Great Wall of China.
    Obviously you have personal knowledge.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 5, 2013
  12. So it's so far over your head you can't even begin to
    discuss it, eh...
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 6, 2013
  13. (PeteCresswell)

    Noons Guest

    You persist in the misunderstanding that Floyd has a mind.
    Yes: through you
    Noons, Mar 7, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.