You of course have a demo to share with us? Otis
"J. C. O'Connell" wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist > > Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2002 10:38 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: Why do my photos appear in PUG full of artifacts? > > > > > > With conventional monitors, the PUG pictures won't get better by going > > to higher res, they'll just get bigger. > > Youve got to be kidding : Bullshit! ( pardon my language) > The more image pixels, the higher the resolution of the total image. > When I scan an 8X10 at 300ppi I end up with a beautiful > 2400X3000 pixel image. But when I resize it to 480X600 > all of the fine detail is lost and the diagonals get > all jagged. Why do you think all the digital cameras are > going to more and more Mpixels? Because it raises the > overall resolution of the image. > > > 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 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. > > > 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. > > 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 .
