> I agree conclusions shouldn't be spread afar until all the data is in.
> Certainly it is far too early to be making any final conclusions with less
> than
> 10% of the data available.
You have passed comments good/bad/indifferent it matters not on at least two
scanners and only 10% of the data is in ???? Not very scientific.
> Actually, the protocol specifies level 6 JPG compression in Photoshop and
> doesn't force a fixed file size. There is an important reason for this.
> Scanners with more detail and pixels should show larger file sizes given the
> same compression level.
I make NO claims to understand how effective/destructive JPEG compression
can be. However, in the context you quote the level of compression is
totally meaningless, because the extent of compression is dependent not on
the original file size but the actual image content. You could easily find
that a level 4 compression on one image produces a visibly better image than
a level 6 from a different image. BTW. my point was that the web page quotes
a protocol which many of the images fail to match. Whether you can or cannot
achieve this target value is of no concern to me. A protocol is a protocol
is a protocol.
> Doing it your way by fixing the files sizes at 1 meg (or whatever) actually
> hides differences between scanners and isn't recommended
With all due respect I would NOT and NEVER did suggest any compression or
fixing the file size at 1 meg. Do your tests at full resolution or don't
bother at all!!!!!!!
BTW. my point was that the web page quotes a protocol which many of the
images fail to match. Whether you can or cannot achieve this target value is
of no concern to me. A protocol is a protocol is a protocol.
Ian Lyons
http://welcome.to/computerdarkroom
====================================================================
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
