Rob Geraghty wrote:
AFAIK digital cameras produce files which are set to 72 dpi. Can anyone
who has one check this? I know it's been driving my brother nuts when people
send digicam pics at screen resolutions and expect him to print them in
a magazine!
Our Sony Digicam gives images at 72
Hi Harvey--
Well I could easily be wrong. Or I they might be looking at
different things.
I'll tell you what I was thinking specifically of when I wrote my
comment: I've been scanning various reflective and transmissive
greyscale targets on a new flatbed scanner and comparing the results.
Austin wrote:
Why would you want to output at a fixed 300 PPI?
Because that's the requirement of the offset printer which many of my recent
photos are going to. Aside from that, 300 dpi is as a general rule of thumb
the best resolution *most* printers (pc and otherwise) work with. Some
are
Everyone has their own points of confusion and moments of comparative
clarity, but this is one discussion about which I have never understood the
confusion.
I use pixels for everything. Everything that is relevant to me, I
mean. The pixels I get out of the scanner becomes the same number of
You could have, if you wanted to...
Art
PS: At least I can have final words... and then drop it.
Austin Franklin wrote:
Since you felt the need to get in your final word (actually several
hundred... but who is counting ;-) I'll do the same...
My, how entirely uncharacteristic of you,
I've became aware of this when I was doing similar analysis recently;
that much of the apparent scanner noise was in fact film grain. So
now that I'm aware of this I factor it into my testing.
--Bill
Bill,
What you write, runs contrary to all of the recent (6 months) threads on
Bill Fernandez wrote:
Well I could easily be wrong. Or I they might be looking at
different things.
I'll tell you what I was thinking specifically of when I wrote my
comment: I've been scanning various reflective and transmissive
greyscale targets on a new flatbed scanner and comparing
I use the manual bulb-type air blower and a good and very soft painting
brush with good results. I always inspect the negatives and slides with a
Rodenstock magnifying glass and a lightning box, both before cleaning and
just before inserting the feeder in the scanner. Afer adopting this
OK, now I have a better understanding of your question.
The big problem most people have is seeing images are composed of two
things, dimension (the size in inches, for instance) and then resolution
(the number of pixels that make up each inch.)
This makes things more complex than necessary.
Calumet carries it in the U.S. Do they have it in the European side ?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mário Teixeira
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Preparing to scan old slides
Harvey,
If I'm reading your comments (below) correctly, the only difference
between your old scanner and your new one in this matter is how the
software operates. A 72 dpi scan at 200% making a 8 x 12 screen image
is the exact same thing as a 144 dpi scan of a 4 x 6 print. And you
don't need
Hi Richard,
Thanks for thinking of me ;-)
Unfortunately, HP did not make me privy of the materials in use within
this scanner, nor did I dismantle mine to test the options.
As someone else suggested, contacting HP's tech people might prove most
effective, as they might know the answers you
As mentioned, the 72 dpi number is a bit long in the tooth these days.
It was a Mac standard used for screen fonts, but is no longer valid for
most monitors which use higher resolutions. Larger monitors (17, 19, or
21) often function at 80-100 dpi or even slightly higher.
Now, 72 dpi (or even
Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I'll understand
all this. ;-)
At 1:08 PM -0700 10/22/01, Ken Durling wrote:
I guess I'm missing the point here. If I were to scan even a 4x6
print at 72 dpi, and then want to display it anything larger than
288x432 pixels, wouldn't
David M. Stone at Photographic Solutions, Inc. manufactures it - you can check his
website at
http://www.photosol.com/ or e-mail him at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maris
- Original Message -
From: Mário Teixeira [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 3:04 PM
Arthur,
You bring up interesting points. I have never actually done side by side comparisons
of the PS or scanner
downsampling to see if there is a noticeable difference. However, I have not
comprehended a difference by 'my
memory' (always a scary proposition) going either way. I will try to
Well, I am new at Silverfast and cannnot comment if it is for an earlier
version, all I know is it says 5 on the file.
I am thinking about upgrading from the default silverfast version that came
with my SS 4000. I scan mostly negatives. Do you think the upgrade is worth
the $45?
Also, I heard there was a free upgrade for SS4000 customers. Is this true?
thanks!
-e
and you thought this thread had died.. G
Well, someone asked if the AN coatings of Glass Slides would show in a scan
and I can say that with Quickpoint slides of the type I have at least, it
most certainly DOES. You get a sort of grassy looking star pattern that is
terrible especially in skys or
One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor Insight is the
ability to use one of several decimation techniques from nearest
neighbor(lowest quality) to bicubic(highest quality also longer). Your
choice would depend on use.
David
-Original Message-
From: SKID
I've noticed that I get much better results from Nikon Scan 3.1 if I disable
color management. If I continue using this technique, I assume I should make
a profile for the scanner that I'd assign to images in Photoshop. I could
also use this profile with VueScan when scanning in raw format - at
I purchase mine at a local outlet, E. P. Levine, in Boston, I know BH
carries it but I do not think the solution is UPS shippable.
David
-Original Message-
From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 4:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor
Insight is the
ability to use one of several
decimation
^
techniques from nearest
neighbor(lowest quality) to bicubic(highest quality also longer). Your
choice would depend on use.
David
David,
Im very
No free upgrade, there may be a discounted upgrade for the AI portion only.
I am trying to get the info now.
I would try Insight for negatives, it usually works very well.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001
I really would love to see a crop from Polaroid scan of the same chrome side
by side with one from a LS4000. Would be interesting..
'ave a good one,
Neil
Try http://www.imaging-resource.com/.
Mike Duncan
Is there an archive for this list? I've been out of town.need to
catch up! Thanks!
Barbara
--
Barbara White/Architectural Photography
http://www.barbarawhitephoto.com
I'd like to thank people for the suggestions on my last post. However, I am
still struggling after trying some of the recommendations.
I did update to 5.2. I've tried it as both PS Plug-In and Twain.
My configuration is Win 98/633MHz/512MB/PS5.5.
My biggest problem is that it crashes the
What documentation!! :)
You expect documentation to!!!
I have been pushing for this feature for at least nine months and it finally
made it in.
David
-Original Message-
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 6:56 PM
To: [EMAIL
http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/
-Original Message-
From: Barbara White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 7:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:filmscanners: Archive?
Is there an archive for this list? I've been out of town.need to
Hi Barbara--
Tony Sleep sent this out recently:
Web archives for this list may be found at :-
http://www.mail-archive.com/filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
http://phi.res.cse.dmu.ac.uk/Filmscan/
At 4:22 PM -0700 23-10-01, Barbara White wrote:
Is there an archive for this list? I've been out of
Thumbs Plus (a shareware browser and processor) has these options for resizing (OK
Austin, 'decimate'!), in order of low to high quality:
- nearest neighbour
- bi-linear
- resample
- bicubic
My experiments revealed that the first 2 weren't very good (I think they were only
there for those
Hi Harvey--
So according to your summary of the discussion on the ColorSync list
they decided that the artifacts being discussed were caused by
scanner noise in dense areas. Certainly a well-known phenomenon. I
on the other hand was referring to an instance where I caught myself
erroneously
Hello all!
I simply cannot make SilverFast work well. (Version 5.5.0r14, NK LS-2000,
Mac OS 9.1, PS 6.0.1) Negatives scan with a nasty green cast and are usually
too dark and muddy. I have set up color management correctly in PS; I
believe I have also done so in SF (the manual is gibberish, but
Thank you to Bernhard Ess and Victor Landweber for the URL on the Minolta
review!
Just thought you might be interested to know that you both know more than
Minolta does!
I called Minolta and spoke to a fellow in digital imaging. He knew nothing
about any available reviews on the Scan Multi
Thumbs Plus (a shareware browser and processor) has these
options for resizing (OK Austin, 'decimate'!),
Thanks! ;-) Basically, decimate means to take away, interpolate means to
add...so when you resize, it depends on whether you go up or down.
Actually, the algorithms should be different
Strictly speaking decimation means remove 1 in 10 hence the dec so it's
definitely NOT the correct term even if some illiterate yank coined the
phrase.
;-)
Strictly speaking, in a normal English conversation (not engineering) you
are entirely correct, sir.
Personally I use down-sample (and
From Merriam-Webster dictionary
One entry found for decimate.
Top of Form
...OLE_Obj... ...OLE_Obj... ...OLE_Obj...
Bottom of Form
Main Entry: dec·i·mate
Pronunciation: 'de-s-mAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -mat·ed; -mat·ing
Etymology: Latin decimatus, past participle of
david soderman wrote:
By the way, does anyone know how to email Minolta? I spent too much time
trying to figure out how to send a simple email on their website. Finally,
I just gave up.
It is amazing how companies do not really want to be bothered answering questions,
especially via
Bill,
Maybe then I'm not understanding you. If what you are saying is true, then the 25mm
sample is not the same
density as the larger format, because of the grain (or more properly, the space
between the grain).
Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC
Bill Fernandez wrote:-
So
- Original Message -
From: SKID Photography [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've never personally encountered it, and not using glass mounts, I
also
haven't needed it. I suspect companies which supply offset printers
might be a source. Perhaps other on the list will know.
Bill
I've been using ACDSee for three + years to view my images. It wasn't until
last night I found out that ACDSee only has lossless JPEG rotate if the
image is divisible by 16. Not that it makes a difference if your viewing
full size images from digital cameras, because those pixel dimensions
I think many of them are concerned about an e-mail-delivered
virus. Of course there are lots of ways around that, but it at least
makes for a good excuse. Of course, also, they really aren't all that
concerned about what their customers have to say, anyway...
Hersch
At 08:09 PM 10/23/2001, you
I've noticed that I get much better results from Nikon Scan 3.1 if I
disable color management. If I continue using this technique, I assume I
should
make a profile for the scanner that I'd assign to images in Photoshop. I
could
also use this profile with VueScan when scanning in raw format -
43 matches
Mail list logo
