15 Apr
2009
15 Apr
'09
1:11 p.m.
On Wed, 2009-04-15 07:53:25 -0500, Jim Battle <frustum at pacbell.net> wrote:
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
I don't--but I'm reading the initial comment different than you.
I'm reading: "On the fiches, they fit 11x13 (=143) A4 pages into an
area of 1"x1.5"=1.5in?."
So in the top-bottom direction, we have:
(11 * 297mm) : 1.5" = 3267mm : 38.1mm ? 85.75 : 1
...and for the left-right direction:
(13 * 210mm) : 1" = 2730mm : 25.4mm ? 107.48 : 1
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw at lug-owl.de +49-172-7608481
Signature of: 23:53 <@jbglaw> So, ich kletter' jetzt mal ins Bett.
the second : 23:57 <@jever2> .oO( kletter ..., hat er noch Gitter vorm Bett, wie
fr?her meine Kinder?)
00:00 <@jbglaw> jever2: *patsch*
00:01 <@jever2> *aua*, wof?r, Gedanken sind frei!
00:02 <@jbglaw> Nee, freie Gedanken, die sind seit 1984 doch aus!
00:03 <@jever2> 1984? ich bin erst seit 1985 verheiratet!
On Tue, 2009-04-14 10:52:00 -0500, Jules
Richardson <jules.richardson99 at gmail.com> wrote:
you are confusing linear pixel density with areal pixel density.
the 11"x13" fitting in 1"x1.5" implies a 11:1 scaling in density, so
300 dpi would be 3300 dpi. still very high for typical consumer
grade scanners. I believe 2400 dpi actual (not interpolated) is
available on decent models, though. The DEC ones I've seen are extremely high
resolution - from
memory, something like 11 x 13 A4 pages on a fiche around 1" x
1.5".
If this is right, then there's a scale factor of about 1:90 to
1:100 involved. That should tell everybody why even a good
consumer-grade scanner will not do the job. To get the equivalent
of a 300dpi scan, you'd need to have about 30000dpi. Nothing any
el-cheapo scanner could handle. (Let alone the problem of getting
the sheet properly into the light's focus.)