In a message dated 23/5/01 1:37:56 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you are right, and they are saying some very strange things.
Whenever I come across drum operators (in the context of magazine repro),
they go to great lengths (4 or 5 words) to explain that my puny 4,000ppi
scans are
In a message dated 22/5/01 8:01:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Every drum scanning bureaux here (central London) seems to think asking for
a file this big is ridiculous. One suggests 80Mb as a maximum another 120Mb.
Why? Nobody can explain to me why I would want a small file and have
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 3:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: drum scanning services
In a message dated 22/5/01 8:01:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Every drum scanning bureaux here (central London) seems to think asking for
a file this big is ridiculous. One
On Tue, 22 May 2001 17:42:07 -0700 PAUL GRAHAM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Have I got something wrong here? Is there nothing wrong with a 120Mb
stepped
up to 480 Mb? Or are drum operators simply too used to working to low
repro
standards? Why won't anyone do a large scan for me?
I
Whenever I come across drum operators (in the context of magazine repro),
they go to great lengths (4 or 5 words) to explain that my puny 4,000ppi
scans are no good even for a postage stamp headshot, and that they scan
*everything* at 12,000ppi.
Whereas the drum op at a place in San
