[APML]: Film Recorders

[Jerry Lodriguss <jml@astropix.com>]

>I have read several statements on this topic which are misconceptions
>IMHO.
>
>Please note that I am avoiding scientific visualization in this
>discussion.  I am trying to confine this discussion to requirements and
>techniques which some users may wish to adopt in their processing to
>improve image quality.
>


John, you obviously know what you're talking about, and even though I didn't
understand 90 percent of what you said :-), I have a question on a related
topic.

I scan my astrophotos and then enhance them in Photoshop and output them to
a film recorder.

Can a film recorder write one pixel of actual data in a 1:1 relation to one
pixel of output that actually gets written on the film?  I'm sure this
question is badly phrased, but I hope you get it's meaning. :-)    For
instance, I have heard that although theoretically a 4k recorder (4096 x
2832) needs a  33.5MB file, in reality, it can't really write 33.5mb of data
in a one to one correspondence onto the film.  
So how much is wasted. What size file would you send to get the highest
quality output from a 4k recorder?  Would the same file look better output
on an 8k recorder?

I'd also like to know if you could make any specific recommendations on
which film recorders to look for for highest quality 35mm transparency
output, and any specific labs or service bureaus you could recommend for
photographic quality film recorder output.

I've had 36mb files output to a Fire 1000 as 4x5 neg and know that the
quality is VERY good and it must be doing a bunch of interpolating up.

Thanks, 

Jerry
email: jml@astropix.com 
Astrophotography Techniques and 
Digital Enhancement in Photoshop Tips:
http://www.astropix.com