But the point of the caption is that an image that is scanned at higher resolution may look softer than one scanned at lower resolution. The upper one clearly looks softer, and it is the upper one that he says was scanned at three times the resolution, yet it is also the upper one that has pixels that are twice as big (in each dimension). If we swap the images, then what he says is softer looking is actually sharper looking, and on top of that we still only have a 2:1 resolution ratio, not a 3:1 ratio as claimed.
My guess is that part of the problem is that the images in the PDF file are artificially rendered at some lower resolution, while the originals that were used to print the paper book have much higher resolution, so we can't really tell what's up from the PDF. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: Robert E. Wright > > I think the two images were published in reverse order relevant to the > caption. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
