"J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > > Youve got to be kidding : Bullshit! ( pardon my language) > The more image pixels, the higher the resolution of the total image.
Yes, but you can only display so many on a monitor. For printing, hi-res is a benefit. For viewing on a given monitor, more pixels only serve to make the image larger. > > When I scan an 8X10 at 300ppi I end up with a beautiful > 2400X3000 pixel image. Yes, and at 100% you can't see all of it on a monitor. > But when I resize it to 480X600 > all of the fine detail is lost and the diagonals get > all jagged. If you're doing it right,, keeping it at 72ppi, and viewing it at 100%, you shouldn't see jagged diagonals on a monitor. On a print, yes. On a monitor, no. > Why do you think all the digital cameras are > going to more and more Mpixels? Because it raises the overall resolution of > the image. For printing. For web viewing, it's inconsequential. > > The PUG size is adequate for > > general viewing, > > I strongly disagree. 600 pixel max is even less than > VGA resolution (640 by 480 ) which went out of style > about 10 YEARS ago. And on a 640 by 480 monitor, a 600 pixel image would almost fill the screen. On a current 1280 x 960 display, it's about the size of a 4 x 6 mini lab print. Not ideal, but adequate for viewing. > > and I find my 6x7 scans are noticeably better than > > 35mm, even at this low resolution. I'll send you a 600 x 400 point jpeg > > that was scanned from a 6x7 color neg if you'd like to see it. It "pops" > > rather well. > > I dont care how much it "pops" at 600X400, it would look MUCH > better at say 1280 X 960. Not just "bigger" but much more > DETAIL. Well, I scanned it at 4000 ppi, which yielded a 9848 x 7128 image after cropping (about 250 meg). That's the one I print from. For the web, I resized it to 600x400 points at 72 ppi, letting PhotoShop resample it. If I view the small jpeg at 100%, and the huge 200 meg tiff file at 6%, they're the same size on my screen. And you know what? to the naked eye, they're identical. No, that's not quite true. The small file actualy looks a little better, because the huge file generates some noise on horizontal lines. Of course, the huge file makes a magnificent 11 x 14 print on my Epson 1200. The little file will show all kinds of pixelation when printed. In other words, on a monitor, it don't make a damn bit of difference. No bullshit. Just fact. > > > > > Most of the scans that look bad on the PUG are bad scans. > > They're not too small. > > Paul > > > > Once again I disagree. They are too small. They dont > even aproach what 35mm can do let alone 6X7. They > might be fine if we were shooting with pentax 110 cameras > but were not. They're bad scans. They're not too small. Check out Shel's flag and barbed wire fence he just posted. I'm sure that's not a very big file. I don't think it's even 600 x 400. But viewed on a monitor at the size he chose, it's crisp and brilliant. The monitor is the limiting factor, not the size of the scan. > > > JCO > ============================================================================ > = > > > "J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > > > > Because the 600 pixel and 75K filesize limitations > > > are a joke. We might as well all be using 1 Mpixel > > > digital cameras. I just resized and jpegged a > > > very nice P67 B&W 8X10" and it looks like crap > > > with only 600 pixels max. What the point of using > > > all these fantastic Pentax lenses, and then reducing > > > the image to where its ruined?????? > > > > > > I vote for larger picture dimentions and filesizes. > > > It's 2002 for christs sake, were using 1992 size > > > images. > > > > > > JCO > > > - > > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
