On Fri, 7 Sep 2001 07:01:59 -0500 Gordon Potter ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I have been told resampling is much more destructive to an image
then resizing.
You were told wrong. Try it.
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info
On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 13:43:22 -0400 Austin Franklin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
That is just not true. F-stops are relative to the film, NOT to the
scanner. You can expand the exposure range on the film through exposure
and
development.
PLEASE read the archives. You can express the range
If you define "resizing" to mean that the pixel dimensions don't change (you do that when you uncheck the "resample image" box under Image Image Size in Photoshop), then resizing within Photoshop will have no affect on the image. A two-inch wide image at 300 ppi looks the same as far as the
If you want to put a picture in your web with 500 pixels wide,
what is better? Scan at full 4000 dpi and resample to adjust
your image at this size (letting PS discard pixels) or scan
at this size. I suppose the first choice but I am not very
secure. ;-(
Best regards,
Dave
Hi Dave,
If the only use of your picture is a 500 pixel web images, you can do as I
do. I've been scanning with the Sprintscan 4000 for over a year and 95% of
the time, my intended output is a 450 pixel jpeg.
I scan at 1200 ppi so I have a 5 megabyte (approximate) image to work with.
I like
Can someone tell me
why my TIF files open larger in Photoshop than their indicated size on the
disk?
A 25Mb file opens as
76Mb in Photoshops scratch size indicator
A 130Mb file at
around 205Mb
A 330Mb somewhere
about 410Mb
what is going on?
these are regular
tiffs, I dont use LZW
At 8:37 PM -0400 9/23/01, Austin Franklin wrote:
I'm curious. Has anyone ever heard that this is a problem previously? I
mean, film has been around for decades...as well as exceptional cameras,
very good enlargers, and enlarging lenses...and people (including my self)
have made some very large
Julian,
thanks for the VERY useful information - I had missed this contrast setting,
too. This is really a saver on most images, and I find that it also
definitely improves color balance, not only contrast. The only drawback is
that often the resulting histogram is very narrow (sometimes it
One size fits all
-Original Message-
From: James Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 12:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: filmscanners: SS4000 comments
Thanks for the info Wire.
I have a question about the different platforms for
Soon to be available primarily to support the SprintScan 4000 plus but with
one new feature for all and one for SprintScan 120 users.
* To improve images scanned at less than 4000 DPI the user has a
choice of several decimation techniques. Nearest neighbor, mixed mode,
bi-linear, and
- The SS4000 SCSI connectors are two different types: one DB-25 and one
Centronics (and odd combination).
The DB25 is a Mac standard for external SCSI connections...and the
Centronics type is a typical SCSI I connection. Not really odd, but
definitely old technology.
Since in reality these are really very different operations, I fail to see
first how any comparison between the two is possible at all (apples and
oranges) and second what definition and criteria of destructive is being
used and with respect to what objective.
If one rescales without resampling,
There
could be a number of reasons. First every time you open a file in
Photoshop, a duplicate working file is opened in memory; if there were no such
duplicate file one would not be able to have a "revert to" feature and maybe not
even a history pallet. All adjustments and changes are made
Scratch Sizes in the status line in Photoshop 6 represent the amount of
memory that is currently being used to display all images open in Photoshop.
If you click the small triangle just to the right of Scratch Sizes, you can
select Document Sizes and this ought to give you an accurate reading.
Paul, you'd probably find it more useful to display "Document Sizes" rather than "Scratch Sizes" in Photoshop if you want to keep track of your image size as you manipulate it, etc. It's not all that important to know the scratch size, provided you have enough of it, of course.
In a message dated
James,
is this still on your ftp site?
I have two goes at downloading 3.1 from the Nikon site but it keeps bombing
out. i would be *very* grateful if you could give me temp access to download
it from your site instead?
best regards
Pete Cutter
- Original Message -
From: James Grove
Same access just don't use IE or Passive mode for transfers
--
James Grove
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.jamesgrove.co.uk
www.mountain-photos.co.uk
ICQ 99737573
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Pete Cutter
Sent: 24 September 2001 20:29
To:
I had been considering buying either the Nikon 8000 or the Polaroid
Sprintscan 120. The Nikon has not been readily available while the Polaroid
has. Each have had positive and negative things said about them. However,
the Nikon's banding issue and Polaroid's financial situation makes a
decision
Peter -
I believe the polaroid scanners are made by microtek - so the
financial aspect of your decision (if you are concerned with
polaroid going belly up) could be removed by changing the name
plate.
__
Gordon Potter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nashville, TN 37215
USA
I'd be curious to know if you tried SilverFast 5.5 or the new PolarColor
software. They made a huge difference for me.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Barbara Martin
Greene
Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2001 2:54 PM
To: [EMAIL
As for the SS 4000, go with Vuescan.
Using both Polarscan and Silverfast, I got terrible results.
You might wish to try version 5.5. Both Insight and SilverFast will produce
excellent scans. Insight is VERY easy to use and whilst SilverFast is
initially quite complex it has the capacity to
Roger Smith wrote:
snip
It also does nothing to explain why high-end scanners and
huge enlargements don't show the bubbles, either. I expect someone
out there will have an answer.
I suspect that the resolving power of enlarging lenses are not as high as the
resolving power of better
I suspect that the resolving power of enlarging lenses are not as
high as the resolving power of better
scanners
I would completely disagree with that!
Hemingway, David J wrote:
Any Mac users considering purchasing a SS4000??
David
Yes, why do you ask?
I am currently considering either the Polaroid or Nikon scanners. Not quite
happy with either and will probably wait several months for something
better. The Minolta Scan Multi PRO
If portability is an issue, you should check out (surprisingly) IBM's
MicroPortable.
http://commerce.www.ibm.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=1947327
cntrfnbr=1prmenbr=1cntry=840lang=en_US
That probably wraps, so cut and paste it. I've seen it in action and lust
after it.
3 pounds.
Ian Lyons wrote:
...whilst SilverFast is initially quite complex it has the capacity to produce
scans from the SS4000
that VueScan users can only dream about (that's not a criticism of VueScan)
What specifically can be better in the final result then, please Ian?
Colin Maddock
Alex - glad it helped - I was beginning to wonder if anyone read any of this.
About the combing, are you using 12-bit? I always scan in 12-bit and I
have not noticed this being a problem except for outrageous manipulations
(which I must admit I seem to need too much of the time). I presume
Buy the SS120. I have one and I like it. The Nikon is probably a fine scanner if you could find one, but is reported to have problems keeping medium format film in focus at the edges due to the type of light source it uses, which also evidently accentuates dust which means you need to use ICE with
Ok
Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Austin Franklin wrote:
I suspect that the resolving power of enlarging lenses are not as
high as the resolving power of better
scanners
I would completely disagree with that!
29 matches
Mail list logo
