Homeopathic Scanner Puzzle

Post Reply
User avatar
cronus
Black Market Analyst
Posts: 18122
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:09 pm
About me: Illis quos amo deserviam
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Homeopathic Scanner Puzzle

Post by cronus » Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:31 pm

I've a flatbed scanner and can scan upto 4800dpi and just wondered if I scanned something then printed it out at 300dpi then scanned the scan and then the scan how long before only scanner artifacts remain and nothing of the original? Maybe one for someone with the math expertise like Jim C?
What will the world be like after its ruler is removed?

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32528
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: Homeopathic Scanner Puzzle

Post by charlou » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:51 am

Image
no fences

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51250
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Homeopathic Scanner Puzzle

Post by Tero » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:02 am

It gets fuzzy really quick. You can do the experiment on photo software without scanning. But there are some effects that result from scanning an already scanned picture. Some patterns appear that are not really there.

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Homeopathic Scanner Puzzle

Post by Jason » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:14 am

In theory you'd be magnifying it by 12 each time you scanned it.

Simple enough maths: Magnification = 12n where n[/n] is the number of times you scan it through.

In reality you'd just get a lot of noise and artifacts probably about the third scan.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74151
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Homeopathic Scanner Puzzle

Post by JimC » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:33 am

Făkünamę wrote:In theory you'd be magnifying it by 12 each time you scanned it.

Simple enough maths: Magnification = 12n where n[/n] is the number of times you scan it through.

In reality you'd just get a lot of noise and artifacts probably about the third scan.


Not really magnifying the entire image, but combining 12 dots into 1 dot each time, so it would get progressively grainier. 2nd scan, 144 original dots into 1 dot, 3rd scan 1728 original dots into one dot, so the upshot is pretty much as Faku said, sweet fuck all after the 3rd scan.

I'd be interested in seeing the pics if you did the experiment...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests