Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
This does seem to be a confusing issue to some. I've had seasoned professional photographers bring me JPG image files on a 3.5" floppy asking for an 8" X 10" print. The only correlation between the pixel density product (H X V) of the electronic image and the hard image is the target resolution of the hard image. As opposed to a negative enlargement, the electronic image really has no size other than pixel density, but when the electronic image is printed to a hard image, the pixel density will determine the resolution of the final product. A 576 X 720 pixel image, for example, printed to an output size of 8" X 10" would have a resolution of 72 dpi. A 2400 X 3000 pixel image would produce an 8" X 10" hard image at 300 dpi. With regard to scanning resolution, I consider only the number of pixels needed to produce the hard image at a defined size and resolution. Jim Sims Tony Sleep wrote: Which don't you agree with: A. "The only dimensions that matter are the number of pixels. The dpi and hence the "physical dimensions" are utterly meaningless." or B. "That's erroneous to say they are 'utterly meaningless'. They CLEARLY are utterly meaningFUL to the printer driver, and, along with the xy number of pixels, determine the printed size of the image." Look, I was trying to simplify a common source of confusion for newbies, which is that scans have only one dimensional parameter that matters: the number of pixels along each side. I know this because I have explained it to many, many of them, and watched a little lightbulb come on when they twig the utility of working only with pixels. Newbies get endlessly confused by the presence of physical dimensions, eg 24x36mm, when a scan is presented across about 3 screens worth of real estate @100% zoom and appears to be about 20"x30". 'Why isn't it 24x36mm on screen, at 100%?' summarises their confusion. It needs to be explained that this is purely a matter of scan PPI/screen PPI, and the physical size of the original is MEANINGLESS, redundant information. It's much easier to understand this if the physical size of the original is just ignored, in the same way that we ignore the physical size of the monitor screen. The scan is X by Y pixels, presented on a monitor which displays A by B pixels, and at 100% zoom you get 1 scan pixel mapped to 1 screen pixel. Usually at this point, illumination dawns. Likewise, it's much easier to understand print resolution in DPI by dividing the number of pixels along each side of the scan by desired output size in inches or cm. This gives an immediate figure for print DPI - eg 2700ppi/10" = 270dpi. Again, the physical size of the original (24x26mm) is IRRELEVANT by this method. Alternatively, you can figure out the largest size at which a given print DPI is achievable by dividing scan pixel dimensions by the target resolution, eg for a 3750x2500pel scan, divide by 240dpi (240dpi being widely regarded as optimal for Epsons) = 15.6"x10.4". Again, original target size is IRRELEVANT by this method. The above is how many image editing software's work with print sizing, but Photoshop, being the comprehensive beast it is, presents all the information it has, including the original target dimensions. It is not necessary to know this, and it leads to cognitive dissonance in people who are struggling with the learning curve. That was the (small) point I was endeavouring to make, in the hope that it might clarify matters for anyone confused by the whole business. Austin's point, that output size is meaningful and necessary to the printer driver, is of course correct - but seems to have reintroduced exactly the confusion I was seeking to eliminate. You don't need to bother with that until you come to set an explicit output size for printing, and even then there is no need to pay any attention to the original size (in cm or inches) if you work with the scan size in pixels. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
Austin Franklin wrote: The only dimensions that matter are the number of pixels. The dpi and hence the "physical dimensions" are utterly meaningless. That's erroneous to say they are 'utterly meaningless'. They CLEARLY are utterly meaningFUL to the printer driver, and, along with the xy number of pixels, determine the printed size of the image. Here we go again... ;-) I don't know about anyone else, but I understood exactly what was being said here. Not only that, but I stated this in a post about a week ago. Laurie said the same thing, although it appears some people might have misunderstood him, which was why I originally stepped into this. Part of my post below: Changing the image size in Photoshop without checking the "resample" box, does absolutely nothing to the file outside of Photoshop. It is an internal function that simply changes the display within Photoshop, and how Photoshop sees the size of the image relative to the screen presentation and the printed size. You will find outside of photoshop, you still have the same file size image, and the image will appear in whatever the dimensions the other program uses as a default. For instance, if you are using web graphics, the image will be displayed at the nominal 72 or 86 or 90 dpi (depending on your screen resolution) and will expand to accommodate that dpi, based upon the pixel dimensions of the image. Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
Tony Sleep wrote: Just to prevent reinventing the wheel, is this based upon personal experience? My assumption would be different (since Photoshop does a wonderful resampling job, and many printer spoolers do not I've tried printing same image at 240,300,360 and 720dpi. I reckoned 300 looked slightly better than 240, using an Epson 1200. I couldn't see any change with the higher figures. I resample to 300dpi now in PS, and that's also convenient because it has become the de facto standard for repro. At least that is what I am invariably asked for, even though it is more than necessary. This is also my process. If the work is for internal use only (just output from my printer) I often use 240 dpi, seems to work faster and the files are a bit smaller for storage. Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
Austin Franklin wrote: This is absolutely correct. You can send the printer driver any resolution you want, and it has to interpolate the data into halftone screens anyway. If you do leave the box checked, and resize, you will then be double interpolating the data...once in PS and once in the printer driver. I would suggest not doing that, as it will, in almost all cases, degrade your image. Just to prevent reinventing the wheel, is this based upon personal experience? Yes, and with discussions with people who know the software ISAO (in-side and out). I am not a PS guru, in fact, I just get my scans as perfect as I can in the scanner software, and don't use PS for much other than printing...and digital contact sheets. Interesting. I'll try this and see how the result compare. My assumption would be different (since Photoshop does a wonderful resampling job, and many printer spoolers do not), but if you have already tested this, I'll take your work on it. If not, I might test the premise. Why would you ever need to resample if you are printing from a 35mm negative, scanned with some decent res scanner, printing no larger than 11x14 (or even 13 x 19) or so? Why do you say printer spoolers (do you mean printer drivers?) don't 'resample'? The Epson ones do...any one with halftone ability has to I believe... You've misread my statement. I'll state it more clearly... "...since Photoshop does a wonderful resampling job, and many printers spoolers (drivers) do not (do a wonderful resampling job)" Yes, of course they have to resample, as you have stated. I suspect, based upon what I have been told by Epson, that perhaps the magic 240 number might work better because perhaps it is the "native" resolution the driver requires to create the halftone image. Perhaps if the driver doesn't have to either interpolate extra data points, or toss out extra data it does so more rapidly and more accurately? I do know that the time the printer driver takes to make the spooled image is longer if it is feed a very large file (over the necessary data required based upon the printer resolution). When I was using a slower computer, this was a fair difference. One thing that is interesting about printer output...you can show one output you think is just great to someone, and s/he'll say it looks terrible! Vice versa too. I think what 'looks' better, isn't necessarily better, because there are a lot of untrained eyes out there...and also with nothing to compare it to, it's tough... Kind of like stereo systems ;-) Most definitely an "untrained eye" seems to have less discretion. My experience is not so much that a person with an untrained eye will select a different output result, but that they do not see the same degree of "difference" between two differing results. Their judgment isn't as refined, so they may be less likely to notice differences in detail, exposure, contrast, color balance, etc. until it is pointed out to them. Also, different people have different visual acuity. Having run a color photo lab, I certainly experience that. However, having trained a dozen or so people from scratch about how to see defects and quality differences in photographic prints, I can tell you that it doesn't take long to make an untrained eye into a trained one. The hardest thing to "learn" seems to be about color accuracy, and that may either be a very long learning curve, or just a genetic ability. I recently took a watercolor class (I have worked in fine arts for about 20 years now) and one early assignment was to reproduce a series of color "chips" the teacher had created while we were in class. Everyone was using different paints from different manufacturers, and all the colors were weird mixes- nothing "out of the tube". I had my "chips" done in about 10 minutes, while the rest of the class struggled for over an hour and some had to take it home with them to continue working. I've worked with color since I was a little kid, and I suspect either I was born with great color awareness, or over many years I developed it. Maybe it "developed" from all the spotting I did over the years on color prints ;-) Other than color perception, however, I think most of the judgment calls in evaluating a print's technical merits can be fairly rapidly learned. I just recommend as I said above, but also encourage people to experiment all they want (hell, it's their ink, paper and time ;-) with a good image, but that's subjective too! Another thing to see if you actually see what you believe you see, is to mark the prints on the back with the output dpi, put them in a stack on the table, mix them up, go back a day or two later, and pick the best one. You'll find your choice will probably change! I totally agree, and I almost always suggest people use their judgment. Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
Guy Prince wrote: Art, Point taken. But the bright orange blazers and pants with the bright orange background kept me mesmerized. I was helpless. Guy I have to admit I haven't seen the show since we got a color TV... (about 35 years ago??) Come to think of it, is that the original L. Welk, or have they been cloning him? ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
Johnny Deadman wrote: on 5/11/00 8:16 pm, Arthur Entlich at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But when I want to be warm and comfy, I sit in the living room (big enough for 5 people on two sofas) with my laptop and pretend everything is rosey while watching Lawrence Welk. Tonight's show showcases Walt Disney. I watched that show. The woman who sang 'When I wish upon a star' apparently dressed as an ice cream cone was great. -- Johnny Deadman Didn't she realize that stars are suns and she'd melt if she got too close? ;-) Do you realize that you have now made it appear that I watch Lawrence Welk? And this will sit somewhere in cyberspace for---ever? The quote above isn't mine, I think it's Guy Prince's. Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
Austin Franklin wrote: This is absolutely correct. You can send the printer driver any resolution you want, and it has to interpolate the data into halftone screens anyway. If you do leave the box checked, and resize, you will then be double interpolating the data...once in PS and once in the printer driver. I would suggest not doing that, as it will, in almost all cases, degrade your image. Just to prevent reinventing the wheel, is this based upon personal experience? My assumption would be different (since Photoshop does a wonderful resampling job, and many printer spoolers do not), but if you have already tested this, I'll take your work on it. If not, I might test the premise. Art
RE: filmscanners: Re: monitors
This is absolutely correct. You can send the printer driver any resolution you want, and it has to interpolate the data into halftone screens anyway. If you do leave the box checked, and resize, you will then be double interpolating the data...once in PS and once in the printer driver. I would suggest not doing that, as it will, in almost all cases, degrade your image. Just to prevent reinventing the wheel, is this based upon personal experience? Yes, and with discussions with people who know the software ISAO (in-side and out). I am not a PS guru, in fact, I just get my scans as perfect as I can in the scanner software, and don't use PS for much other than printing...and digital contact sheets. My assumption would be different (since Photoshop does a wonderful resampling job, and many printer spoolers do not), but if you have already tested this, I'll take your work on it. If not, I might test the premise. Why would you ever need to resample if you are printing from a 35mm negative, scanned with some decent res scanner, printing no larger than 11x14 (or even 13 x 19) or so? Why do you say printer spoolers (do you mean printer drivers?) don't 'resample'? The Epson ones do...any one with halftone ability has to I believe... One thing that is interesting about printer output...you can show one output you think is just great to someone, and s/he'll say it looks terrible! Vice versa too. I think what 'looks' better, isn't necessarily better, because there are a lot of untrained eyes out there...and also with nothing to compare it to, it's tough... Kind of like stereo systems ;-) I just recommend as I said above, but also encourage people to experiment all they want (hell, it's their ink, paper and time ;-) with a good image, but that's subjective too! Another thing to see if you actually see what you believe you see, is to mark the prints on the back with the output dpi, put them in a stack on the table, mix them up, go back a day or two later, and pick the best one. You'll find your choice will probably change!
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
Joanna, I've had a Viewsonic P815 for three years and no problems to date. I don't know what the latest version is. They seem to be built like a 'tank'. Chris. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 12:53 AM Subject: filmscanners: Re: monitors i am a photographer with a PC, Nikon scanner and Epson 750 (eventually a 2000). i want to get a 20 inch monitor and would like some recommendations about what kind to get? thanks, Joanna
Re: filmscanners: Re: Monitors
Robert, I've had a ViewSonic P815 (that's 19") for three years now without a glitch. I don't know what the latest version is though. I'm interested in your comment about monitor calibration using "ColorVision". Can you please tell me more and where I can get it. I too haven't a lot of success with Adobe Gamma. Chris. - Original Message - From: "Robert DeCandido" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 2:01 AM Subject: filmscanners: Re: Monitors I have the new Samsung SyncMaster 900NF (19 inch) monitor for about a month. For the price (approx. $425.00 plus $50.00 for shipping), it has been a wonderful investment. There was a review in PEI magazine (Andrew Rodney; the August issue) that sealed the deal. This monitor is significantly less than the Mitsubishi Diamond which would have been my next choice. The advantage to both of these monitors is that one can adjust (calibrate) the RGB guns. With ColorVision (PhotoCal), you will be closer to printing what you see on your monitor than with Adobe Gamma or other monitor profiling packages (Monaco, eg). Best luck, but definitely go for at least 19in. BTW, why the Epson 2000? Too much money, too slow and Cone will have a color CIS system out by next spring (so they claimed today in NYC). I would go with the 1270 in the interim. Robert DeCandido, PhD NYC
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
on 5/11/00 8:16 pm, Arthur Entlich at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But when I want to be warm and comfy, I sit in the living room (big enough for 5 people on two sofas) with my laptop and pretend everything is rosey while watching Lawrence Welk. Tonight's show showcases Walt Disney. I watched that show. The woman who sang 'When I wish upon a star' apparently dressed as an ice cream cone was great. -- Johnny Deadman http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
RE: filmscanners: Re: monitors
I'm a little confused by this thread and it makes me wonder if I'm doing something wrong. When I make prints, all I do is feed my 4000 dpi scan into the print dialog and tell it to spread the image to the margins (maintaining correct aspect ratio of course, so there is white border along two parallel edges unless the image precisely corresponds to the aspect ratio of the paper). I just let the print drivers figure everything out. I'm using the Epson 2000P, so can print to the edge of the paper. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Julie, female Galah (3 1/2 years and going strong at the moment) Little Birdie, male Splendid Parakeet (13 years) Snowflake, male cockatiel (12 years) http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Gordon Tassi Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 6:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors Guy: I also am new at this, have an LS-30, and a system with much less capacity than yours. I have found (through trial and error) that the system handles the scan better if you scan at 2700 set at the original negative size, then play with it in a processing package like Photoshop. When I print it from that file at around 300 ppi at the 7 x 10 size, Windows does not seem to get frustrated. Gordon Guy Prince wrote: What stumped me was when I scanned that same slide at 2650 dpi and attempted to make a 5 x 7 size image suitable for printing. (Within about 30 minutes of using the filmscanner it was clear that my old PIII 600 with ultra-wide scsi wasn't going to be enough). Well, Win98 said I didn't have enough memory to make a 5 x 7 image. I was actually shocked and did some digging around in my memory to see if any unnecessary programs were loaded. No. I have 256mb of ram and 1.6 gigs free on my swap file drive (c:). I guess I should knock it back down to 1350 or 1200, that seems to give me a 4 x 6 print and 5 x 7 okay. Guy
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
Guy Prince wrote: Tony, I have been forced into laptopdom because of space. We had to buy a home about 1/4 the size of the rental home we had. My computer/photography lab was sacrificed. Although I do have a large two car detached garage with power, water, sewer, gas and ethernet in there. Within the year we should have my darkroom set up, and my PC is already in there. But when I want to be warm and comfy, I sit in the living room (big enough for 5 people on two sofas) with my laptop and pretend everything is rosey while watching Lawrence Welk. Tonight's show showcases Walt Disney. Guy Anyone who watches (and worse still, listens to) Lawrence Welk should be forced to sit in the garage and freeze his *(*@ off, IMHO. ;-) And I don't believe you could find 5 people in the same district who would watch that show, so you don't need all the sofa space, so just buy a second desktop computer and toss one of the sofas. ;-) Art
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
Frank Paris wrote: The two horizontal lines on Trinitron monitors are intrinsic to the design and as far as I know will always be there. I know, it is a nuisance. I'm always mistaking them for a scratch on the film, for that's just about what Those lines are shadows of wires used to tension the grill (or something like that), so as I understand it, they'll pretty much stay there. Once I had a Sun branded 25" monitor at work (made by Sony I understand) and I think that huge tube had three wires as I recall. In any case, one doesn't notice them pretty soon after using it, and even then one usually could only notice them when looking for them on solid light (like white) backgrounds in normal use, or in really critical viewing. I really really liked that monitor. Mike K. P.S. - Changed jobs, just have a 19" non-trinitron monitor on my work 'pewter now. Home one is an older 21" non-trinitron (Philips) monitor, so I can't complain.
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
The two horizontal lines on Trinitron monitors are intrinsic to the design and as far as I know will always be there. Tubes that use an aperture grid, such as some of Mitsubishi's, are a better compromise between the severe tonal aperture errors with shadow-mask tubes, and the striped Trinitron design. See what WCI have to say about them: http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/computer.html Regards, Pete.
Re: filmscanners: Re: monitors
on 11/3/00 5:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i am a photographer with a PC, Nikon scanner and Epson 750 (eventually a 2000). i want to get a 20 inch monitor and would like some recommendations about what kind to get? thanks, Joanna This does not answer your question, but related to it, what do people think about LCD monitors like the Apple 15" flat panel display (768x1024 and 24-bit color)? Of course, they are expensive.
RE: filmscanners: Re: Monitors/printers
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Robert DeCandido Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 6:02 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: filmscanners: Re: Monitors BTW, why the Epson 2000? Too much money, too slow and Cone will have a color CIS system out by next spring (so they claimed today in NYC). I would go with the 1270 in the interim. I had to consider this. I already had an HP 2000C for doing fast, inexpensive, routine mixed text and color, so speed was not an issue. What I wanted were two things: archival quality rivaling the most persistent photographic printing, and (near) photographic quality output. The 1270 is only comparable to standard photographic printing in archival longevity. I wanted to make prints where people would not have to see them fade during their lifetime, if properly stored. That leaves out the 1270. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
