Re: information contained in surrogates

From: Mary Winter (mary.winter@MAIL.STATE.KY.US)
Date: Wed May 30 2001 - 10:31:29 CDT

  • Next message: Luiz da Camara leme: "Overhead scanners"

    Message-Id: <200105301537.IAA22782@dns.ccit.arizona.edu>
    Date:         Wed, 30 May 2001 11:31:29 -0400
    From: Mary Winter <mailto:mary.winter@MAIL.STATE.KY.US>
    Subject:      Re: information contained in surrogates
    To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
    

    <pre> Our photographer, Nathan Prichard, has been looking over my shoulder on this discussion. I include his thoughts on this below:

    Mary,

            Well, I see a Hollinger box of weasels has been opened.

            I derived my very approximate figures based on the normal
            levels of resolution for various film formats, if the
            photographer is doing his part. These are the resolutions
            on the film, which are almost always less than what the
            lenses are actually capable of producing, if that nasty old
            physical stuff with emulsion were not involved. Resolution
            is in line pairs per millimeter (often listed as lines per
            millimeter or lpm). The lines are separated by a space equal
            to the width of the line, so the pair actually made up of a
            black line and a white one (| (sp) | (sp) |). In digital
            terms, that means two pixels (one for the black and one for
            white/blank space). So a resolution in lpm's is doubled for
            pixels (or dots) per millimeter and then multiplied by 25.4
            (millimeters per inch) for dpi (dots per inch).

            lpm x 2 x 25.4 = dpi

            Film size Nominal lpm Approx. DPI

            35mm 80 4,000

            120 60 3,000

            4x5 40 + 2,000

            [8x10 uses some of the same or similar lenses as 4x5.
            Resolution would be about the same, at least for many
            modern lenses. Some lenses can produce greater resolution
            on some formats, as with macro/copy applications.]

            Uncompressed file size can be calculated by multiplying the
            format dimensions (in inches) by the dpi squared for B & W.
            For color, multiply that result by three (assuming 8 bit
            color depth in both cases).

                                            Nathan

    I think this is pertinent to the original question about stitching files. Please note, however, that the issue of resolution was not the primary factor in our decision to incorporate analog surrogates into our preservation/access workflow. But then, we have Nathan . . .

    Thanks, Mary

    Mary E. Winter Special Collections Manager Kentucky Historical Society 100 W. Broadway Frankfort, KY 40601 tel.: (502) 564-1792 ext. 4428; fax. (502) 564-4701

    -----Original Message----- From: Guenter Waibel [mailto:mailto:guenter@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU] Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 6:05 PM To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: information contained in surrogates

    Hi list,

    this is a question tangential to Mary Winter's post. Mary wrote:

    At 12:25 PM -0400 5/29/01, Mary Winter wrote:
    >Basically, you can capture about 3 times the surface area on 4x5 (about a
    >240 meg. file), which could be scanned at 2000dpi (fairly normal for a 4x5
    >film scanner).

    If I understand her correctly (please chime in if I'm misreading you, Mary!), she says that the data contained in a 4x5 transparency is equivalent to 240 MB (I take it at 24 bit RGB color).

    Now this raises an interesting question for me: how much data do analog surrogates contain? Or in other words, at what capture resolution do we exceed the source resolution of the surrogate? Does anybody have information, or leads to information, that spells out the amount of data contained in different types of surrogates in digital terms (resolution of capture, pixel dimension, filesize)? I'd be especially interested in data pertaining to 4x5 transparencies, 35 mm slides, 8x10 prints and also filmstock (16 mm and 35 mm).

    All comments and insights are very much appreciated.

    Thanks, Guenter

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Guenter Waibel
    Berkeley Art Museum & Pacific Film Archive
    Digital Media Developer http://www.bampfa.berkeley.edu/
    Digital Imaging SIG Chair, MCN http://www.mcn.edu/visig_subscribe.taf
    mailto:guenter@uclink4.berkeley.edu
    Phone   510-643-8655
    Fax     510-642-4889
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    

    </pre>



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 30 2001 - 10:41:41 CDT