Nice scans, Shel. But as you point out, the scanner's resolution isn't a factor when
you're resizing for the web. Everything on the web is 72ppi. Of course, the 4000 ppi
will print far better at 11 x14 than the 1000 ppi, and it will look a bit better
than the 2800 ppi scan. I scan most of my images at 4000 ppi, because my principal
reason for scanning is to generate files for digital printing. Web applications are
secondary for me. So when I want an image for the web, I just resize one of my
printing files. However I could just have easily scanned the original at a lower
res.
I am not certain, but I do think scanning at a resolution somewhat higher than
the web number is an advantage. I think PhotoShop's resampling produces a better
look than what most scanners are capable of at very low res. But that's just a
guess.
Paul
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Yesterday I spent some time with a friend running a test of scanners. I
> won't go into all the details of why we're doing this, but here's what
> we're doing: we've got three scanners to use at this time, a Nikon
> Coolscan 4000, a Nikon LS 1000, and a Leaf, which will scan up to 4x5
> negatives or slides.
>
> We chose two negatives to work with, one with lots of detail and a broad
> contrast range and the other rather low contrast with broad areas of sky
> and little fine detail.
>
> The first set of scans included both negs on the Coolscan, with
> resolution set at 4000ppi, 2800ppi, and 1000ppi, and at each resolution
> we scanned with and without using GEM ... but I digress. I've put up a
> page which has three scans of the one negative at three different
> resolutions. The only manipulation to the negs was to adjust the gamma
> a bit (all were adjusted to the same level) and to crop them ever so
> slightly to get rid of the black border and a distracting element, and
> bring the ppi down to something more compatible with the monitor. IOW,
> all were treated identically.
>
> Here's the page ... and without going into some photo editing software,
> and just by looking at the images on the screen, can you honestly see
> any significant difference between them. If there is any, it's not
> noticeable on my monitor, nor on the monitors af three other people to
> whom I've sent the page. Take a look and tell me what you think.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/temp/ls4000-test-pdml.html
>
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> >
> > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote:
>
> > > Youve got to be kidding : Bullshit! ( pardon my language)
> > > The more image pixels, the higher the resolution of the total image.
> >
> > Yes, but you can only display so many on a monitor. For printing, hi-res is a
> > benefit. For viewing on a given monitor, more pixels only serve to make the
> > image larger.
> >
> > >
> > > When I scan an 8X10 at 300ppi I end up with a beautiful
> > > 2400X3000 pixel image. Yes, and at 100% you can't see all of it on a monitor.
> >
> > > But when I resize it to 480X600
> > > all of the fine detail is lost and the diagonals get
> > > all jagged.
> >
> > If you're doing it right,, keeping it at 72ppi, and viewing it at 100%, you
> > shouldn't see jagged diagonals on a monitor. On a print, yes. On a monitor, no.
> >
> > > Why do you think all the digital cameras are
> > > going to more and more Mpixels? Because it raises the overall resolution of
> > > the image.
> >
> > For printing. For web viewing, it's inconsequential.
> >
> > > > The PUG size is adequate for
> > > > general viewing,
> > >
> > > I strongly disagree. 600 pixel max is even less than
> > > VGA resolution (640 by 480 ) which went out of style
> > > about 10 YEARS ago.
> >
> > And on a 640 by 480 monitor, a 600 pixel image would almost fill the screen. On
> > a current 1280 x 960 display, it's about the size of a 4 x 6 mini lab print.
> > Not ideal, but adequate for viewing.
> >
> > > > and I find my 6x7 scans are noticeably better than
> > > > 35mm, even at this low resolution. I'll send you a 600 x 400 point jpeg
> > > > that was scanned from a 6x7 color neg if you'd like to see it. It "pops"
> > > > rather well.
> > >
> > > I dont care how much it "pops" at 600X400, it would look MUCH
> > > better at say 1280 X 960. Not just "bigger" but much more
> > > DETAIL.
> >
> > Well, I scanned it at 4000 ppi, which yielded a 9848 x 7128 image after
> > cropping (about 250 meg). That's the one I print from. For the web, I resized
> > it to 600x400 points at 72 ppi, letting PhotoShop resample it. If I view the
> > small jpeg at 100%, and the huge 200 meg tiff file at 6%, they're the same size
> > on my screen. And you know what? to the naked eye, they're identical. No,
> > that's not quite true. The small file actualy looks a little better, because
> > the huge file generates some noise on horizontal lines. Of course, the huge
> > file makes a magnificent 11 x 14 print on my Epson 1200. The little file will
> > show all kinds of pixelation when printed. In other words, on a monitor, it
> > don't make a damn bit of difference. No bullshit. Just fact.
>
> --
> Shel Belinkoff
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
