I assume you also do resampling.. what method you use for resampling?
Thanks Ramesh
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Why and How I switched to Canon (for those who care) long
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:51:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622)
Received: from host24.websitesource.com ([209.239.33.40]) by MC8-F19.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:52:17 -0700
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])by host24.websitesource.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) id j3UEqEKf032730;Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:52:14 -0400
X-Message-Info: tUj+E00hCsMbc5MYGnkglGCOT+zWoq8D4oICug091SQ=
Resent-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 10:51:23 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: host24.websitesource.com: dbrewer set sender to [EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622)
Resent-Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
X-Mailing-List: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> archive/latest/163020
X-Loop: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2005 14:52:17.0394 (UTC) FILETIME=[3410C520:01C54D94]
On Apr 29, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Ramesh Kumar wrote:
I used to get 5300x3400 pixels from 35mm scans and never worried about printing on 13x19' paper. I do not have that luxury with *istD, and miss it. To reach "35mm pixel freedom..:-)", I may have to do few upgrades.
I find that prints made from digital capture are generally about the same quality as 35mm film scans when output at 50-75% the density. 2000x3000 pixels produces about the same quality 13x19" print as your 5300x3400 scan. This is due to the lack of grain, grain aliasing, and other emulsion/analog->digital defects induced by the scanning process.
I have many inkjet generated prints made with both capture processes hanging side by side, and you simply cannot see a difference.
Godfrey
