I forgot to say that this crop is app. 7% of the total frame/photograph. Jens
I have posted two files: One is a crop of the original 5Mp file (2560x1920 pixel-72 ppi - a 3Mb JPEG file - 14 Mb as a Tiff file) The other is same shot and crop interpolated to 300 ppi. The whole photograph would have been 61 Mp as a Tiff file) http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p6922908.html http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p6922909.html Theres is realy very little difference between the to files - except for the file size. I only doubled the size (in each direction = 4 times the area). I could easily have made a even larger - perhaps 100-200 Mb. The trick is to do in steps - doubling each time. And reducing the pixel size to reach to desired size (5100x3400). Every time the computer invent new pixels to put in between the original recorded ones. I cant see why annsan can't resize her files to the desired resolution from her 3 Mp files. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 22. august 2004 18:25 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: sad stuff about stock photography and up-to-date technology On 22/8/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, offered: >Kostas? Oh well what do you expect if the only ID on your emails is the 'from' field ?? However, my intent with whipping cream and MXs still stands. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________
