In article <TBbbh.15934$Uz.1518@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
babelfish <babelfish2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>The last time I checked, there were no camera lenses that resolve 25000
ppi.
>We don't image dye clouds, but at up to a true 4096 pixels per inch or
160
>lines per millimeter written by a point light source, I've never been
able
>to tell the difference under the best 10x loupe between an original and
an
>LVT and neither have any of my customers. Actually, we can't tell at less
>than half that resolution. We've enlarged these films up to murals as
well.
>To be honest, I've never used a microscope, and there might be some
>artifacting there to give it away, but if you had no original to compare
it
>to, what would you look for to tell you that it wasn't original camera
film
>if original view camera lenses aren't any sharper than what this process
can
>yield?
There is a good chance that if you scan it at a very high resolution,
there will be evidence of that 4096 ppi in the frequency domain (but
there are probably a number of other statistical correlation techniques
that allow you to find patterns that result from the digital imaging
system).
The issue is not whether the original is sharper, but whether you can
hide artifacts from your digital system in the noise. This assumes of
course that somebody really sets out to prove that it is a forgery.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
|
