Ken writes: > When I scan an image - into whatever file > formet, I use TIFF out of Vuescan - and then > open it in PS, I can immediately see some > sharpness loss ...
As compared to what? When I've compared scans to actual direct examination of negatives or slides (Provia and Velvia) under a microscope, I often cannot see any clear difference at all, at least at 4000 dpi. When you look at a scan on the screen, at full resolution, you are looking at the equivalent of a huge enlargement; MF scans at 4000 dpi displayed on my screen (which is set to 1600x1200), for example, are the equivalent of an enlargement measuring 7.5 feet on a side. Scans that large will not look sharp unless you used a good lens, a sharp film (Provia, Velvia, Kodachrome, etc.), and a tripod. > It's in the down-sized scan that I see the change > in sharpening response. The sharper the original transitions in an image, the greater the apparent effect of an unsharp mask tends to be. > ... why is the sharpening so much more effective > on the smaller image? There are more details in the smaller image for a given number of pixels, and they are spaced more tightly. The nature of sharpening is such that it is much more obvious when an image already contains a lot of fine detail. > And am I losing something I'm not yet aware of? When you downsize, you lose a great deal of detail; which is why you cannot upsize again and get an image identical to the original. > 2 examples - feel free to criticize: They look great, just right. I don't see any artifacts. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body