- Original Message -
From: Bob Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks Bob
In my few tests with it, I've found that manual focussing 'on-screen'
rather
than using the knob on the front of the scanner seemed to give me much
better results.
Does that mean several preview scans while changing
- Original Message -
From: Henning Wulff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vuescan does nominally support the scanner, but it always wants to
'warm up the lamp' for 3 or 4 minutes before every step, so it takes
40 minutes to do one scan. Useless.
Henning
Maybe you should check Vuescan again, because I
240 dpi is all that is needed.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Pixels and Prints
I suspect I will 'go digital' sometime in the next
Paul,
You can get super-sharp prints at 12x18 from a D100 providing the image was
super-sharp to start with (I also uprez with QI). I hand-hold my camera most
of the time, and buying the 80-200 VR AFS lens has made an enormous
difference to my print sharpness. Set the speed to 1/1000 and it is
Karl,
Yes, but you can get rid of real grain and artifical grain if you use a
program like Neat Image. Use it last of all after sharpening and it will get
rid of sharpening artefacts as well, or at least reduce them to the level
where they are not noticeable. Neat Image Pro+ is my best buy of all
My experience is that most digital devices focus amazingly well in low light
conditions. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 is a NOTABLE exception. It's low light
focusing capabilities are very poor. Other than that, it's a great little
camera.
The SCSI cable on my flatbed scanner is 6' long, and it's never caused me a
problem. I don't believe I've ever seen anything longer, however.
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
Hi Eugene,
240 dpi is all that is needed.
Needed? I have images that show more detail (and look better) using up to
480PPI to the printer...
Regards,
Austin
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Eugene,
240 dpi is not all that is needed, because the Epson driver upsamples that
(or any other dpi you send it) to 720 dpi (desktop printers), using Nearest
Neighbour type upsampling. So 720 dpi is what is needed by the driver. The
question is can you get better results by upsampling to 720dpi
I'm trying to find it in VueScan's help pages but cannot find it.
How to set VueScan so that it doesn't change color of scans when I go
through the whole film of images of similar type? (transparency)
I cannot fing any lock color balance button in VueScan.
I'm scanning in Color/Color Balance/White
I've produced very acceptable 13x9s from a 1.68 megapixel camera, the
Canon Pro 70.
Yes, when you get up close you can see staircasing from the lack of
resolution, but in practice you don't examine big pictures close up.
And for me the complete absence of film grain makes all the difference.
In
Sorry, there is no hard-and-fast print resolution answer--a lot of it depends on the
subject matter. I've gotten 11x17's I was very happy with from my 4MP Olympus E-10.
I've
also gotten 8x10's that were awful, even though there were no actual problems like
focus or
noise.
One example is
on 10/21/03 2:04 AM, Eugene A La Lancette PhD MD at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
240 dpi is all that is needed.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Hi Austin,
The SCSI cable on my flatbed scanner is 6' long, and it's never
caused me a
problem. I don't believe I've ever seen anything longer, however.
Single ended SCSI, as most here will be using, is spec'd for up to 3 meters.
Typically, in my experience, the main issue people have with
Hi Bob,
240 dpi is not all that is needed..., because the Epson driver upsamples
that
(or any other dpi you send it) to 720 dpi (desktop printers),
using Nearest
Neighbour type upsampling. So 720 dpi is what is needed by the driver.
Just a minor clarification...both of you really mean PPI,
Roger Krueger writes:
Comparing digicam pixels to scanner pixels is misleading because scanner
pixels are
second-generation--4000 scanner pixels=2700 digicam pixels seems empirically
like a good
approximation, but I don't have research to prove this.
My estimate is 4000 scanner pixels=2400
Roger,
Comparing digicam pixels to scanner pixels is misleading because scanner
pixels are
second-generation--4000 scanner pixels=2700 digicam pixels seems
empirically
like a good
approximation, but I don't have research to prove this.
So what if it's second generation? Unless you can
Hi All,
Just a note of appreciation for the quality content and positive tone of
recent weeks. My thanks to Tony and all for the demonstration of support on this
list. It appears that there is still much to share, discuss and to learn.
Regards,
Steve Dreiseszun
Thats what I get for doing math late at night, my bad.
- Original Message -
From: Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:19 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Pixels and Prints
From: KARL SCHULMEISTERS
Realistically, a 6mPixel camera is
Upsampling always results in some loss - it might be artifacts, it might be
loss of tonal gradation. My math was late night error. My practical
experience is that I have yet to see a digicam image of less than 10+mPixels
that looks as good printed at 11x17 as 35mm scanned at 4000dpi printed to
20 matches
Mail list logo
