> On Jul 21, 2019, at 6:16 AM, Joseph S. Barrera III via cctalk > <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > I'd suggest that in 2019 when bits are cheap and high-quality scanners > nearly as cheap, "crappy quality digital image" is a bit of a straw man. > Yes, I've seen plenty of barely-readable or practically unreadable scans, > but they were made years or decades ago. > > What dpi qualifies as not "crappy"? 300dpi? 400? 600? That's not a particularly meaningful question. 300 dpi can be adequate, 400 is more likely to be, 600 is plenty for just about every purpose. But asking about adequate DPI is like asking a race car driver about adequate horsepower. It's just one tiny detail among a much larger set of more relevant issues. A high resolution scan with bad exposure, or insufficient dynamic range, can be nearly unuseable. Post-processing scans to make them easy to read is not at all a simple matter, especially for old faded documents. You can also cause trouble by a poor choice of compression methods, but fortunately people using scanners typically know enough to avoid JPEG and the like. paul
- Re: Scanning question (Is... Fred Cisin via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question... Fred Cisin via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question... ED SHARPE via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question... Fred Cisin via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question (Is destruction ... Christian Corti via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question (Is destruct... Warner Losh via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question (Is destruction of o... ben via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question (Is destruction ... Jon Elson via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question (Is destruct... ED SHARPE via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question (Is destruct... Paul Koning via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question (Is destruction of o... Paul Koning via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question (Is destruction of old te... Chris Hanson via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question (Is destruction of old te... Guy Dunphy via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question (Is destruction of o... allison via cctalk
- RE: Scanning question (Is destruction ... Mattis Lind via cctalk
- RE: Scanning question (Is destruction of o... Guy Dunphy via cctalk
- RE: Scanning question (Is destruction ... Dave Wade via cctalk
- RE: Scanning question (Is destruction of old te... Alan Frisbie via cctalk
- Re: Scanning question (Is destruction of old te... Guy Dunphy via cctalk