> I don't believe anyone is going to take a 50M image file and post it to the > web for us to see, that is just silly. The only way to make a 50M image > reasonably viewable (say 800x600 @ 100DPI) on the web is to resample it. That > renders it pretty much useless for any type of detailed image comparison, > which was my point. > Er... I think they meant post a crop of the full res file. -- Regards Richard ////////////// | @ @ ------->>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> C _) ) --- ' __ /
- RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems Tony Sleep
- RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems Laurie Solomon
- Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems EdHamrick
- RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems Cooke, Julie
- RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems Cooke, Julie
- Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems EdHamrick
- RE: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems Cooke, Julie
- Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems EdHamrick
- Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems WRGill
- Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems WRGill
- filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems Colin Maddock
- Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems IronWorks
- Re: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems IronWorks
- RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems Jack Phipps
- RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems Stan Schwartz