So I guess I'll use Austin's
method, since there is less processing involved and you get to actual
printing faster.
I applaud that you actually tried both and reached your own conclusions. Worth more
than any amount of argument and theory :)
Do you actually get the print finished quicker
00 7:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors/printing exact dimensions
with Photosho
So I guess I'll use Austin's
method, since there is less processing involved and you get to actual
printing faster.
I applaud that you actually tried both and reache
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Tony Sleep wrote:
Look, I was trying to simplify a common source of confusion for newbies,
which is that scans have only one dimensional parameter that matters:
the number
of pixels along each side. I know this because I have explained
it to many, many of them, and
available.
Tim Mimpriss
Cymru/Wales
- Original Message -
From: "Frank Paris" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors
This is so true! About getting confused, I mean. When I first s
The only dimensions that matter are the number of pixels. The dpi and
hence the "physical dimensions" are utterly meaningless.
That's erroneous to say they are 'utterly meaningless'. They CLEARLY are
utterly meaningFUL to the printer driver, and, along with the xy number of
pixels,
inch and by halving the image size you have
effectively
doubled the dpi.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 9:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors
The only dimensions that matter are the number of pixels. The dpi and
hence the "physical dimensions" are utterly meaningless.
That's erroneous to say they are 'utterly meaningless'. They CLEARLY are
utterly meaningFUL to the printer driver, and, along with the xy number of
pixels,
rke
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 10:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors
But you're not doing anything of the kind.
The only dimensions that matter are the number of pixels. The dpi and
hence the "physical dimensions" are utterly meaningl
: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors
That so-called resizing is nothing of the kind!
All it does is change the dpi figure in the file, the picture content is
completely unchanged.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Laurie Solomon) wrote:
Resizing in Photoshop is not interpolation
I've been confused by this for the last two years using the HP
PhotoSmart Scanner, and now my SS4000 software allows the same thing.
What I would like to see is a procedure to do the following (for
example): I
scan at 4000 DPI in a crop ratio 11:14. Then on A3 size paper I want to
print
What I would like to see is a procedure to do the following (for
example): I
scan at 4000 DPI in a crop ratio 11:14. Then on A3 size paper I want to
print an image exactly 11"X14".
I can tell you how I do it:-
I do it slightly differently, and I'd be curious if you'd compare the
What stumped me was when I scanned that same slide at 2650 dpi
and attempted to make a 5 x 7 size image suitable for
printing.
You may well be attempting to scan at 5x7" @ 2650ppi, ie (5*2650) x
(7*2650) = 13250x18550, which will cause lots of interpolation. 256Mb
would
]: filmscanners: Re: monitors
What stumped me was when I scanned that same slide at 2650 dpi
and attempted to make a 5 x 7 size image suitable for
printing.
You may well be attempting to scan at 5x7" @ 2650ppi, ie (5*2650) x
(7*2650) = 13250x18550, which will cause
ears)
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 9:09 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors
Resizing in Photoshop is not int
This does not
involve any sampling of the bits across the scan to create a smaller
image
(that is interpolation).
That's actually called 'decimation', when you 'remove' data...interpolation
is when you 'add' dataother than that 'point of order', what you said
was right on.
nt: Monday, November 06, 2000 5:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors
What precisely do you mean by "resizing"?
By "resizing" I mean precisely "rescaling," or changing the dimensions of
the image without making any change in the r
I was of the opinion that interpolation was
the general term which covered both down sampling and upsampling; but I
guess I was wrong in this assumption. Until your post, I was totally
unaware of the term "decimation" with respect to sampling; I associated
it
with destructive natural and
I'm still not getting this thread. Why is resizing in PhotoShop not
interpolating? It still has to use bilinear resampling, doesn't it,
which is
a form of interpolation.
Resizing is crude, better to resample using bicubic interpolation, tho
PS calls that resizing too. So it *is*
to kill enough to make the point, but leave enough
to become useful and willing members of society (i.e., taxpayers).
--Dana
--
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Re[7]: filmscanners: Re: monitors
Date: Monday, November 06, 2000 8:29 PM
I can accept
19 matches
Mail list logo
