scanning as contrasted to large format scanning.
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 5:58 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res
I believe what Bob is stating is that some scanners
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 5:58 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res
I believe what Bob is stating is that some scanners literally skip lines
or sensors and just record the spaced information, rather than taking
the full resolution and then averaging
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 5:58 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res
I believe what Bob is stating is that some scanners literally skip
lines
or sensors and just record the spaced information, rather than taking
the full resolution
Laurie,
I sent that reply to someone on another list who was using large-format film
but then scanning it at one-quarter of the optical resolution of his scanner
since he didn't want large files. There was some doubt as to whether I was
correct, so I thought I would see what this filmscanners
: scanning at less than optical res
I believe what Bob is stating is that some scanners literally skip lines
or sensors and just record the spaced information, rather than taking
the full resolution and then averaging the pixels out via a series of
algorithms. This, of course, would introduce
Thanks, that clarifies things a great deal.
- Original Message -
From: Bob Frost [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 4:40 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res
Laurie,
I sent that reply to someone on another list who
If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the 4800
possible data points per inch and throws three out of every four away, or
only samples every fourth possible point. So you are only getting one
quarter of the possible data from the film. So why scan at large format if
you are
