Money quote ...
Yes, here we go again.
You CAN bombard me with facts about 8 bit being fine.
And people can 'talk up'/ 'talk down' their particular
favourite, preferred or religious route.
I will ALWAYS scan at 16 bit, and will always archive
at 16 bit. Just because the tools today cant make my
Mike Brown wrote:
He was very honest in making clear that this was a projected value
based on
extended temperature, pressure humidity storage.
What else could he say??? well. we were actually finalizing this
technology back in the year 1899, and we've been secretly testing the
disks since
Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
The Foveon technology looks interesting, but their current implementation
doesn't have any diffuser over the sensor, which makes it appear sharper
than most competitive sensors, but it is prone to aliasing and moire.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul
I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of making and storing 16
bit scans. If you have the time to work with that large a file, and the
disk space or other storage to do so, then go and do it. I wonder what
you'll be doing when 32 bit ability becomes available (not that I can
see any
Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Foveon technology looks interesting, but their current implementation
doesn't have any diffuser over the sensor, which makes it appear sharper
than most competitive sensors, but it is prone to aliasing and moire.
I've only seen samples on the web
Austin,
I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and
stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce Fraser seems
to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm just trying out a Minolta 5400, and
the 16bit files are 233 MB! I might just accept your argument
Can anyone in the UK please help.
I am trying to purchase the Polaroid SS 120 Glass Negative carrier to enable
me to scan Xpan negatives.
I am still waiting for Polaroid UK to come through with one, and thought I
would ask the group if anyone knows of one that might be for sale?
If I end up
Hi Bob,
I, for one, would love to hear how you like the Minolta 5400!
Regards,
Austin
Austin,
I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and
stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce
Fraser seems
to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm just
From: Bob Frost
I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and
stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce
Fraser seems
to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm just trying out a Minolta
5400, and
the 16bit files are 233 MB! I might just accept
I just took a look at the image you directed me to. But I didn't stop
there, because without a comparison it doesn't mean a lot. Is the
defect due to the jpegging, is it the limit of a digital sensor, or the
resolution? I couldn't tell. So I went to another digital review site
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Entlich
I just took a look at the image you directed me to. But I didn't stop
there, because without a comparison it doesn't mean a lot. Is the
defect due to the jpegging, is it the limit of a digital sensor, or the
resolution? I couldn't tell. So
on 9/12/03 5:00 PM, Paul D. DeRocco at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Arthur Entlich
I just took a look at the image you directed me to. But I didn't stop
there, because without a comparison it doesn't mean a lot. Is the
defect due to the jpegging, is it the
At 07:10 PM 9/12/03 -0600, Berry Ives wrote:
I notice that there have been no comments at all on the new Olympus E-1
DSLR. I guess it is too early for folks to have any experience with it.
They have an interesting take on digital, that the light hitting the chip
should be coming in
Just because the tools today cant make my
gold 100% pure, doesnt mean the tools tomorrow wont.
While I agree if one is talking about producing archive masters but not with
respect to working files, this agreement is tempered by an understanding
that Austin may be right that the visability and
Johnny Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 07:10 PM 9/12/03 -0600, Berry Ives wrote:
I notice that there have been no comments at all on the new Olympus E-1
DSLR. I guess it is too early for folks to have any experience with it.
They have an interesting take on digital, that the light hitting the chip
At 10:02 PM -0400 9/12/03, Johnny Johnson wrote:
At 07:10 PM 9/12/03 -0600, Berry Ives wrote:
I notice that there have been no comments at all on the new Olympus E-1
DSLR. I guess it is too early for folks to have any experience with it.
They have an interesting take on digital, that the light
16 matches
Mail list logo
