16 Dec
2007
16 Dec
'07
8:46 a.m.
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:03:30 -0500 (EST), der Mouse wrote:
Perhaps - but film still has attributes which digital
cameras don't,
such as lack of aliasing artifacts (because the grains are randomly
dispersed in the film instead of being in a neat rectlinear grid).
On the other hand modern printing devices (ie: epson photo 2200)
use a ramdomized spray to break the pattern and introduce the
desired randomness.
In attempt to get back on topic, When working with the ECRM 8400, the
first halftoning scanner/printer in the early 80's operators often twisted
the origional off axis in the scanner to reduce the herringbone pattern
introduced by the process even though it was mostly analog.
The output was burned on PMT paper using an AM modulated laser
and chemically processed.
Scan was acoumplished bouncing two laser beam off of a mirror attached
to a galvanometer yes an analog galvanometer. one beam passed over the
origional, at the same time a second beam record the previous scan
on PMT paper to be processed chemically.
Harringbone and undesired patterns have been a problem for printers
since the first time a photographer printed threw window screen to
"fake" an etching for printing purposes.
Back under my rock......
This has drifted far enough off topic, unless someone cares about c1980
vintage scanners and the death of linotype in the newspaper business :-)
What I would give now, to have small camera in my tool box, back then.
The other Bob