Larry wrote:
The only way you might experience the differences you are referring to is
if you are scanning to a jpeg output which creates an imprecise workflow and
inconsistent results.
That's exactly what I did (it's the way HP Precision Scan works), and it
explains what I'm seeing. I bow to
Keep in mind that 1200x1200 is about 80% fewer pixels than 2700x2700. Also,
since you mentioned that you are describing jpg file size, that the
different applications may be using differing levels of jpg compression.
Pat
- Original Message -
From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
writes ...
Have you noticed that JPEGed flatbed image
files are considerably smaller than the
same pictures scanned with your filmscanner?
...
This could be due to a couple of factors. If there is any tendency for the
flatbed to produce a softer image it will compress to a smaller
It is my understanding that flatbeds generally do not pick up the detail
that a filmscanner does at the identical resolution. Since there is less
detail there are more areas of 'sameness' which, I assume, uses less space
for the JPEG algorithm to describe, whether compressed or uncompressed.
