Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Karl Schulmeisters wrote:
I don't think this is the case. Otherwise you would have seen this
phenomenon from enlargements made from transparencies long ago.
Consider
this, the human eye can resolve about 1 minute
Karl Schulmeisters wrote:
I don't think this is the case. Otherwise you would have seen this
phenomenon from enlargements made from transparencies long ago. Consider
this, the human eye can resolve about 1 minute of 1 degree of arc (1/60 of a
degree) in the horizontal plane (most
My experience as well. The lenses Kodak provides for their projectors
are very forgiving should we say.
My Navitar Gold lenses certainly define what I'm looking at.
Art
John Matturri wrote:
Haven't been following this thread all that closely so this may have
been covered. But what lens
seen quite often
on modern projectors.
Steve
PS Can anyone date the projector ? It has a gun metal finish.
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes
- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
As a preface, when you project the slide much of that grain is masked by
the
surface
Lynn said Howcome Polaroid users aren't seeing it? Or are they just not
talking about it?
Mines an Artixscan 4000T a (I'm told) SS4000 apart from the box and the
software.
You've seen my section of sky I don't know if its any better or worse than
anyone elses, but it is definitely there.
|
| - Original Message -
| From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:00 AM
| Subject: RE: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution
?
|
|
| The solution looks so easy that I probably don't understand the problem
Even better might be a wacom (or other) tablet, which gives the additional
benefit of pressure sensitivity. Holding a pen seems much more natural than a
mouse for fine movements and raising the pen up and down is much better than
clicking the mouse for cloning. Beyond all this I'm not subject to
While there maybe some merit to your comments about dust in the air masking
flaws in the slide being projected, I had the actual surface texture of the
projection screen in mind as well as the actual viewing distance independent
of any dust.
Laurie
Haven't been following this thread all
.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Be sure that you are using an *optical* mouse or trackball - it will track
So the projection effectively helps mask the grain what a happy
coincidence
While there maybe some merit to your comments about dust in the air
masking
flaws in the slide being projected, I had the actual surface texture of
the
projection screen in mind as well as the actual viewing
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Steve Greenbank
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2001 6:15 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: What causes this and is there any easy solution ?
Today I'm going for the dual prize of most boring picture (see attachment)
and most dumb
Hi Steve,
I just took a look at your mottled sky within photoshop. I enlarged it,
I sharpened it, I sent it through a spectral analysis, I looked for
encrypted messages or codes, I ... ;-)
And, you are absolutely right, it is the dullest picture I've ever seen
on this list. ;-)
OK, enough
13 matches
Mail list logo
