[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
> From: LAURIE SOLOMON > > Preston, technically you are correct in saying failes do not have > resolution > and even in saying that their contents do not either; but standard non-RAW > file formats do contain metadata which furnish rendering > instructions which > tell the program to render the 3000x2100 pixels or what have you in a > certain way at a certain resolution on a monitor display or in a print. > This rendering in effect will determine the dimensions of the display or > print in terms of its rendered output size. It also is what > determines what > the original directly imported into Photoshop image will have as its given > resolution in dpi/ppi as found in the Photoshop Image\Image Size > resolution > box prior to any changing of the file by the user. Nobody pays attention to the ppi values in an image file. When you view an image on the screen, you either get one pixel per pixel, or an image that is somehow fit to the window--the ppi value plays no role. When you load an image into Photoshop, and open the Print With Preview dialog, the ppi value is used as a starting point for the print size, but no one blindly prints at that size, one always overrides it to get the desired print size. This question keeps coming up. It would have been better had the inventors of image file formats not included any ppi fields. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Put simply, you're confused by the way that certain software applications (e.g. Photoshop or scanner software such as Nikon View) allow the user to specify the pixel-dimensions of a destination image by specifying dpi and linear dimensions (in units that are not pixels - e.g. by requesting an 8 inch picture on the longest dimension, at 300dpi). The fact that these applications allow the user to avoid thinking in terms of the number of pixels per side in an image does not in any way alter the fact that the quality settings of a digital camera do not include manipulation of the dpi setting. Digital cameras' size/resolution quality is only determined by file format (JPEG, TIFF, RAW etc.) and pixel-dimensions. JPEG usually has a sliding scale of "quality" values that the photographer can select, compromising picture quality against storage card capacity. The digital photographer cannot directly manipulate dpi in the camera, and even if it was possible it would be meaningless, since the pixel-dimensions of the file are what determine resolution. If you examine the Image Size dialog in Photoshop you will discover that it is possible to arbitrarily alter the dpi setting of a picture and in doing so, the pixel-dimensions of the picture will not change. It is merely a question of asking Photoshop not to resample the picture whilst altering the dpi setting. This is often a handy first step in performing a re-size in order to take a source picture and transform it into the correct number of pixels to print/show on a device at a given size. Photoshop allows the photographer the chance to perform this sizing operation without having to calculate the pixel-dimensions of the destination image. The second step is to re-open the Image Size dialog and turn on Resample Image, and then enter the dimensions in the desired units (e.g. 8 inches). Jawed Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Preston, technically you are correct in saying failes do not have resolution
and even in saying that their contents do not either; but standard non-RAW
file formats do contain metadata which furnish rendering instructions which
tell the program to render the 3000x2100 pixels or what have you in a
certain way at a certain resolution on a monitor display or in a print.
This rendering in effect will determine the dimensions of the display or
print in terms of its rendered output size. It also is what determines what
the original directly imported into Photoshop image will have as its given
resolution in dpi/ppi as found in the Photoshop Image\Image Size resolution
box prior to any changing of the file by the user.
In short, I was suggesting not to save the captured image in JPEG format
with the selection of either the low or medium quality settings and
sometimes even the Fine setting if that is the next to highest setting; nor
would I recommend saving the file to a TIFF format using the Low, Medium,
and sometimes Fime settings. By using the highest setting or option
available on the camera which usually can be slected for the TIFF format and
not the JPEG format (we are not talking about RAW formats here), you will
get the best image in quality and resolution to use as the archival basis
for genrating working copies at resolutions and image sizes for uyse in the
varied purposes that the image might be used ( i.e., on the internet,
printed via inkjet, or reproduced via printing press for puting on the
refrigerator, greeting cards, displaying on a wall, or for publication).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Preston Earle
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: "Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar
with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you
can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format;
but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would
also be good . . . The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting
serious pictures is to capture and save them as 72 dpi . . . "
--
With all this discussion of file resolution, I feel I should point out again
that *files* don't really have a "resolution". That is an attribute that's
assigned when the file is printed or displayed. Files have size (in pixels),
and a 3000x2100-pixel file can be 300-dpi(ppi) ("hi-res") and be reproduced
at 10"x7" or it can be 72-dpi(ppi) ("lo-res") and be reproduced at about
42"x29". There is nothing about an image file that makes it hi-res or
lo-res. The same file can be hi-res or lo-res depending on the intended
output size.
Preston Earle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
I beg to differ with you; but I am not going to get into a food fight with you over it. In the case of RAW, you are correct the dpi is somewhat irrelevant in that raw files do not contain any reference to resolution per se only to the size of the image X x Y pixels; however, if you save to a standard non-RAW format, resolution does matter in that it is made part of the file metadata which is used to instruct applications how to render the image in the image file. However, in terms of the camera, there is not specific settings that use the terminology or provide for options in ppi or dpi terms per se. The frequently set the effective resolutions in terms of the maximum umber of pixels along the longest side that are captured but assume that is will be divided by 300 dpi when written to the standard non-raw file format. This is what allows them to point to print sizes that can be produced at different quality levels depending on the quality level/file format combination selected. But more importantly, many if not all cameras do put resolution limitations on what can be saved when it is being saved to standard non-RAW files. The two Nikon digital cameras and the Kodak pro 14/n that I own will not allow one to save images to Jpeg file formats with resolutions certain maximum effective resolution; wherein the TIFF format permits the highest ant the JPEG format allows for lesser effective resolution depending on the compreesion level selected. To wit, capture an image at each of the available quality and format combinations your camera allows (except RAW) and open each image without any manipulation in Photoshop and check the resolution of the opened image in the Photoshop Image/Image Size box in the Resolution space. I think you will find that they will have different resolutions (dpi/ppi). This is not after any resampling or after the image has been through the printer and produced as a hard copy but as it is rendered on the monitor display in ppi directly as imported from the camera flash card. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 12:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? The dpi setting of a digital camera file is utterly irrelevant here. Different cameras output their files (no matter their format) at fixed dpi settings. Different manufacturers of digital cameras have different norms for dpi, but it has no impact whatsoever on resolution or print size. A 2560x1920 file at 72dpi or 300dpi is identical. Choosing TIFF or RAW solely based on dpi is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the key parameter of digital camera files, pixel-dimensions. The quality differences you may observe between maximum resolution JPEG, TIFF and RAW files have absolutely nothing to do with the "dpi" setting recorded in a digital camera file. Jawed > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON > Sent: 25 November 2004 17:36 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? > > > Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it; > but I assume > that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your > images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format; but > capturing them > at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would also > be good, as > long as you have an OEM program or Adobe's RAW application to > work with them > prior to saving them as a TIFF. After you save them as a > TIFF (or PSD if > you use Photoshop) format file, you can than manipulate and > edit them image > editing programs like Photoshop, including using > interpolation if necessary. > The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting serious > pictures is to > capture and save them as 72 dpi Jpeg files unless you are shooting > exclusively for internet use or refrigerator door snapshot > prints. Even if > those are some of the uses that the image might be put to, I > would shoot at > maximum resolution and save without compression or if necessary with > lossless comprssion so as to have the highest quality > original possible; > You can always convert that original into a compressed Jpeg > for use on the > internet and you can always downsample the image resolution > to 72 dpi after > the fact (both of which I would save as different working > copies of the file > so as to retain the original file. > > In your case, I would archive the original RAW file and make > a working TIFF > copy for use in editing and printing or from which I would > make any jpeg > files. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Myles > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:18 AM > To:
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: "Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar
with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you
can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format;
but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would
also be good . . . The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting
serious pictures is to capture and save them as 72 dpi . . . "
--
With all this discussion of file resolution, I feel I should point out again
that *files* don't really have a "resolution". That is an attribute that's
assigned when the file is printed or displayed. Files have size (in pixels),
and a 3000x2100-pixel file can be 300-dpi(ppi) ("hi-res") and be reproduced
at 10"x7" or it can be 72-dpi(ppi) ("lo-res") and be reproduced at about
42"x29". There is nothing about an image file that makes it hi-res or
lo-res. The same file can be hi-res or lo-res depending on the intended
output size.
Preston Earle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
The dpi setting of a digital camera file is utterly irrelevant here. Different cameras output their files (no matter their format) at fixed dpi settings. Different manufacturers of digital cameras have different norms for dpi, but it has no impact whatsoever on resolution or print size. A 2560x1920 file at 72dpi or 300dpi is identical. Choosing TIFF or RAW solely based on dpi is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the key parameter of digital camera files, pixel-dimensions. The quality differences you may observe between maximum resolution JPEG, TIFF and RAW files have absolutely nothing to do with the "dpi" setting recorded in a digital camera file. Jawed > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON > Sent: 25 November 2004 17:36 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? > > > Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it; > but I assume > that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your > images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format; but > capturing them > at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would also > be good, as > long as you have an OEM program or Adobe's RAW application to > work with them > prior to saving them as a TIFF. After you save them as a > TIFF (or PSD if > you use Photoshop) format file, you can than manipulate and > edit them image > editing programs like Photoshop, including using > interpolation if necessary. > The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting serious > pictures is to > capture and save them as 72 dpi Jpeg files unless you are shooting > exclusively for internet use or refrigerator door snapshot > prints. Even if > those are some of the uses that the image might be put to, I > would shoot at > maximum resolution and save without compression or if necessary with > lossless comprssion so as to have the highest quality > original possible; > You can always convert that original into a compressed Jpeg > for use on the > internet and you can always downsample the image resolution > to 72 dpi after > the fact (both of which I would save as different working > copies of the file > so as to retain the original file. > > In your case, I would archive the original RAW file and make > a working TIFF > copy for use in editing and printing or from which I would > make any jpeg > files. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Myles > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals? > > > Date sent:Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600 > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? > > > I use the program frequently; and find that for most > upsampling within the > > normal ranges, it is not all that much different from > Photoshop's Bicubic > > methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that > the difference > may > > begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine. > > > > What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with > quality, why are > you > > saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which > uses lossy > > compression and which most digital cameras will not let you > save captures > at > > resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to limit one to > capturing at > > resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were me, I would be saving the > > captures to Tiff format files which most cameras allow to > be saved at > 300ppi > > resolutions. > > > My canon G2 digital does not offer the tiff option but offers Raw > format which I believe can be converted to tif.Would such a conversion > give me the benefit you mention ? > > Resolutions of 72 ppi are common for web use but not for > > printing and especially not for large prints; and Jpeg > format is used so > > that the user can capture on one card more images (assuming > that they will > > only be used for viewing online or via monitors or will > only be printed at > 4 > > x 6 sizes at best). > > > > -- > -- > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title > or body > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming mes
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Well, I do not own that camera and am not familiar with it; but I assume that if you look in the manual you will find that you can capture your images at around 300 dpi and save them to a tiff format; but capturing them at a high resolution around 300 dpi as a RAW file would also be good, as long as you have an OEM program or Adobe's RAW application to work with them prior to saving them as a TIFF. After you save them as a TIFF (or PSD if you use Photoshop) format file, you can than manipulate and edit them image editing programs like Photoshop, including using interpolation if necessary. The last thing I would suggest if you are shooting serious pictures is to capture and save them as 72 dpi Jpeg files unless you are shooting exclusively for internet use or refrigerator door snapshot prints. Even if those are some of the uses that the image might be put to, I would shoot at maximum resolution and save without compression or if necessary with lossless comprssion so as to have the highest quality original possible; You can always convert that original into a compressed Jpeg for use on the internet and you can always downsample the image resolution to 72 dpi after the fact (both of which I would save as different working copies of the file so as to retain the original file. In your case, I would archive the original RAW file and make a working TIFF copy for use in editing and printing or from which I would make any jpeg files. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Myles Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 10:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals? Date sent: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? > I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the > normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic > methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may > begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine. > > What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why are you > saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which uses lossy > compression and which most digital cameras will not let you save captures at > resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to limit one to capturing at > resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were me, I would be saving the > captures to Tiff format files which most cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi > resolutions. My canon G2 digital does not offer the tiff option but offers Raw format which I believe can be converted to tif.Would such a conversion give me the benefit you mention ? Resolutions of 72 ppi are common for web use but not for > printing and especially not for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so > that the user can capture on one card more images (assuming that they will > only be used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4 > x 6 sizes at best). > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.289 / Virus Database: 265.4.2 - Release Date: 11/24/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?????
Date sent: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:12:13 -0600 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? > I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the > normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic > methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may > begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine. > > What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why are you > saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which uses lossy > compression and which most digital cameras will not let you save captures at > resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to limit one to capturing at > resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were me, I would be saving the > captures to Tiff format files which most cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi > resolutions. My canon G2 digital does not offer the tiff option but offers Raw format which I believe can be converted to tif.Would such a conversion give me the benefit you mention ? Resolutions of 72 ppi are common for web use but not for > printing and especially not for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so > that the user can capture on one card more images (assuming that they will > only be used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4 > x 6 sizes at best). > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
> From: Stan Schwartz > > Help me with the math here. What would be the final dimension of the image > whose snippet you are displaying here? And for reference, your > 10D captures > an image of about 3K pixels on the long dimension, right? The 10D is 3072x2048. The magnification in both those test images was 10X, so a full image would have been 30Kx20K. In general, one wouldn't use a magnification that large, but the point was to make it easy to see what the software does, in its effort to preserve sharpness. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
> From: LAURIE SOLOMON > > Again I have no complaint with your description of the > differences between > GF and Bicubic and potential artifacts and byproducts of each. I > looked at > your two examples and for the life of me I cannot see any > differnces between > them and do not see the artificial elements in the foreground > that you note. > Maybe it is because I am viewing the images over the internet on a monitor > or maybe I am just not as sensitive and picky as you. :-) Are you sure you were looking at the two different images? The first message had two copies of the same URL (sorry). Load the first himage, click on Next, then use your browser's Back and Forward button to toggle between the two images. They're VERY different. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Paul, Again I have no complaint with your description of the differences between GF and Bicubic and potential artifacts and byproducts of each. I looked at your two examples and for the life of me I cannot see any differnces between them and do not see the artificial elements in the foreground that you note. Maybe it is because I am viewing the images over the internet on a monitor or maybe I am just not as sensitive and picky as you. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 1:31 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? > From: Laurie Solomon > > Yes, the tests were done prior to PSCS and I know of none done > since. I am > not sure if Adobe made significant improvements to the basic Bicubic > formulation as much as they made its implementation more sophisticated by > furnishing two subtle variations on the basic formulation. As I understand it, bicubic is a linear (in the sense of linear algebra) resampling filter. If you blow something way up, you always wind up with a blurry result, if you zoom in on it. PS CS has added Bicubic Smoother and Bicubic Sharper variants, but they merely tweak the high frequency response of the filter, which you can see quite easily if you blow up some sharp edges to 10x. GF attempts to go beyond that by finding edges, and then trying to preserve that edge sharpness when it upsamples. This is nonlinear processing, and is in some sense artificial--and therefore not always effective. I find that it works great on images that have distinct edges, e.g., architectural shots, but sometimes creates edges where there were none. I've posted a pair of examples, both involving blowing up by 10x a small piece of an image that had some architectural edges as well as some non-edge detail. You can see what I mean: http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399 http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399 In the foreground, the artificial edge invention looks like some exotic Photoshop special effect. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Paul, Help me with the math here. What would be the final dimension of the image whose snippet you are displaying here? And for reference, your 10D captures an image of about 3K pixels on the long dimension, right? Stan Schwartz Paul wrote: I've posted a pair of examples, both involving blowing up by 10x a small piece of an image that had some architectural edges as well as some non-edge detail. You can see what I mean: http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399 http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399 In the foreground, the artificial edge invention looks like some exotic Photoshop special effect. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?????
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> I've posted a pair of examples, both involving blowing up by 10x a small piece of an image that had some architectural edges as well as some non-edge detail. You can see what I mean: http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399 http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399 In the foreground, the artificial edge invention looks like some exotic Photoshop special effect. <<< (Next gets the GF one.) Thanks for posting that: I had been wondering what it did, and now I know I don't need it. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Sorry, the two images are: http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399 http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593400 -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
> From: Laurie Solomon > > Yes, the tests were done prior to PSCS and I know of none done > since. I am > not sure if Adobe made significant improvements to the basic Bicubic > formulation as much as they made its implementation more sophisticated by > furnishing two subtle variations on the basic formulation. As I understand it, bicubic is a linear (in the sense of linear algebra) resampling filter. If you blow something way up, you always wind up with a blurry result, if you zoom in on it. PS CS has added Bicubic Smoother and Bicubic Sharper variants, but they merely tweak the high frequency response of the filter, which you can see quite easily if you blow up some sharp edges to 10x. GF attempts to go beyond that by finding edges, and then trying to preserve that edge sharpness when it upsamples. This is nonlinear processing, and is in some sense artificial--and therefore not always effective. I find that it works great on images that have distinct edges, e.g., architectural shots, but sometimes creates edges where there were none. I've posted a pair of examples, both involving blowing up by 10x a small piece of an image that had some architectural edges as well as some non-edge detail. You can see what I mean: http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399 http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/image/36593399 In the foreground, the artificial edge invention looks like some exotic Photoshop special effect. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?????
Yes, the tests were done prior to PSCS and I know of none done since. I am not sure if Adobe made significant improvements to the basic Bicubic formulation as much as they made its implementation more sophisticated by furnishing two subtle variations on the basic formulation. As in the past, it is debatable if there is or is not a need to employ 3rd party solutions like GF. In the end, it all boils down to standards and tastes ultimately if Bicubic methods cut it ot not and if the 3rd party solutions are improvements over the Bicubic methods. I only mentioned the cited example as evidence that the GF limits do not stop at upsamplings of lower than 4 or 5 X. - Original Message - From: "Ed Verkaik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 12:15 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals? From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I have even seen comparisions of sections of 35mm images blown up to billboard size by GF and Photoshop where GF has come out ahead in terms of lower numbers of artifacts and averaging errors. >> Just to clarify, though... this refers to pre-CS versions of PS right? I understood that PSCS had significant improvements doing down- and upsizing and effectively removed the need for a 3rd party solution like GF. Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?????
From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I have even seen comparisions of sections of 35mm images blown up to billboard size by GF and Photoshop where GF has come out ahead in terms of lower numbers of artifacts and averaging errors. >> Just to clarify, though... this refers to pre-CS versions of PS right? I understood that PSCS had significant improvements doing down- and upsizing and effectively removed the need for a 3rd party solution like GF. Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
Paul, > If you overuse it, say beyond 4X in each dimension, it starts to look artificial I think if you overuse any tool, it starts to look artificial; but that being said, I think that your 4x guideline needs to be qualified by the proviso that it depends on the type and content of the image. As you note, it works best with images that have sharp edges; thus, they along with some other images with other properties might be enlarged to a greater extent than 4x. I personally, have found that I was able to enlarge images up to 20x without them looking artificial. Moreover, even if some would find some artifical looking aspects to them, I would venture to say that the artificiality is no greater than that produced by Photoshop's bicubic used for the same degree of enlargement. However, it has also been my experience that the greater the degree of enlargment the better Gf has done as compared to Bicubic ( at least the bicubic method used in pre-CS versions of Photoshop. I have even seen comparisions of sections of 35mm images blown up to billboard size by GF and Photoshop where GF has come out ahead in terms of lower numbers of artifacts and averaging errors. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals? > From: Brad Davis > > Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My scanner > provides very high resolution compared to my (current) digital camera, but > there are times when I have taken an image with the digital camera that I > would like to enlarge. I've had some success with Photoshop's > BiCubic - it > depends on the image - but I've wondered about Genuine Fractals. > > I know the theory, and it makes a lot of sense to me, but my experience is > that there is often some distance between theory and implementation. > > So, has anyone used Genuine Fractals as a primary means of up sampling to > allow much larger prints than logically should be done from an > original like > a 1.5 MegPixel jpeg (down from a 5 Megpixel digital photograph)? I think it works pretty well, if the image has some sharp edges in it, because it is somewhat able to recognize edges, and artificially preserve them when blowing the image up. If you overuse it, say beyond 4X in each dimension, it starts to look artificial. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.799 / Virus Database: 543 - Release Date: 11/19/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?????
Laurie, I can see that I wasn't being clear - first, I want to salvage some of those shots done and saved as 1.5 Megapixel JPEGS, and then I want to see if I can't get much better results out of the Sony than I am able to get now when I enlarge - consistently. There are instances where I don't see how it would be any better, but many instances where that isn't the case. It sounds as though Genuine Fractals will help the smaller files and may have some (perhaps limited) effect on the larger TIFFs. Thus it does sound as though I ought to try Genuine Fractals. Thanks for your thoughts and comments On 20/11/04 17:39, "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> As it happens, I can get a pretty good 8X10 from such a file, but >> then I go to 12X18 (if I can live with no cropping), > > Well, I did a commercial job using as an experiemnt a point and shoot 4.3Mp > Nikon Coolpix camera captured at maximium resolution of 240ppi into a TIFF > format just to see what the camera could do. I had it enlarged to 16 x 20 > and printed via a Chromira LED printer on traditional Fuji color > photographic paper via the wet photographic process. The sharpness and > color blew me away; I was very impressed having expected much less. In > fact it was better than some of the stuff I shot of the same subject with > the traditional film camera. In fact, the client bought the 16x20 test print > over those images shot on film for use as a display at trade showes > promoting his products and services. Since then, I went out and bought a > Kodak DCS 14/n which is a full frame 35mm 14MP digital camera, which I have > used on a number of commercial jobs. > > Thus, I fail to see why you cannot get a 12x18 or larger high 1quality print > out of the camera you are using as long as you can capture it to a TIFF file > format with somewhere around a 200-300 ppi resilution. > >> I expect that I will want to get the professional version as it seems to > have more >> capability. > > The only difference is if you are sending the images to a press for > publication as a CYMK color space image or sending them spearations. The > only significant difference between the standard version and the Pro version > is that the standard version only works with RGB files which is what most > digital files are and what most inkjet,laser, and hybrid photographic > printers use, while the Pro version works with RGB and CYMK files. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> On 20/11/04 13:12, "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling >>> within the normal ranges, it is not all that much different from >>> Photoshop's Bicubic methods. It is in the extreme ranges of >>> upsampling that the difference may begin to appe >>> arandGFmaybegintoshine. >>> >>> What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why >>> are you saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which >>> uses lossy compression and which most digital cameras will not let >>> you save captures at resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to >>> limit one to capturing at resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were >>> me, I would be saving the captures to Tiff format files which most >>> cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi resolutions. Resolutions of 72 >>> ppi are common for web use but not for printing and especially not >>> for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so that the user can >>> capture on one card more images (assuming that they will only be >>> used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4 >>> x 6 sizes at best). >> >> >> Laurie, >> >> Good question. Initially, I didn't *ever* use the digital camera (a >> sony 707) for anything that I would want to enlarge too much. But of >> course, it happened that I took a shot here and there that I did want >> to use larger. Initially, the memory available for the Sony was just >> 128 Mbytes (now it is >> much better) and the number of TIFFs allowed per memory stick was >> quite >> small as a result. >> >> In any case, the upshot is that I now have a number of images that I >> like - >> some shot as experiments (digital encourages that a lot) some shot as >> records, some for other circumstances, and while I can squeeze some >> of them >> a great deal, I would like to find a way that is consistent. I found >> that >> for a time I did shoot more with the Sony - in situations where I >> probably >> should have been using my Contax, but had been seduced by the instant >> reinforcement of the Sony - even at just 5 Mpix, lossy captured at >> 1.5 Mpix. >> As it happens, I can get a pretty good 8X10 from such a file, but >> then I go >> to 12X18 (if I can live with no cropping), and - Oh Well. >> >> I have experimented with the TIFF, and it does better (duh), but it >> still is >> no match for even my six year old Polaroid SprintScan 4000 working on >> negatives and transparencies from my Contax system. I don't care >> that the
[filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?????
Paul, thanks, that's a useful piece of information. Brad On 20/11/04 17:44, "Paul D. DeRocco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Brad Davis >> >> Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My scanner >> provides very high resolution compared to my (current) digital camera, but >> there are times when I have taken an image with the digital camera that I >> would like to enlarge. I've had some success with Photoshop's >> BiCubic - it >> depends on the image - but I've wondered about Genuine Fractals. >> >> I know the theory, and it makes a lot of sense to me, but my experience is >> that there is often some distance between theory and implementation. >> >> So, has anyone used Genuine Fractals as a primary means of up sampling to >> allow much larger prints than logically should be done from an >> original like >> a 1.5 MegPixel jpeg (down from a 5 Megpixel digital photograph)? > > I think it works pretty well, if the image has some sharp edges in it, > because it is somewhat able to recognize edges, and artificially preserve > them when blowing the image up. If you overuse it, say beyond 4X in each > dimension, it starts to look artificial. > > -- > > Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco > Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
> From: Brad Davis > > Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My scanner > provides very high resolution compared to my (current) digital camera, but > there are times when I have taken an image with the digital camera that I > would like to enlarge. I've had some success with Photoshop's > BiCubic - it > depends on the image - but I've wondered about Genuine Fractals. > > I know the theory, and it makes a lot of sense to me, but my experience is > that there is often some distance between theory and implementation. > > So, has anyone used Genuine Fractals as a primary means of up sampling to > allow much larger prints than logically should be done from an > original like > a 1.5 MegPixel jpeg (down from a 5 Megpixel digital photograph)? I think it works pretty well, if the image has some sharp edges in it, because it is somewhat able to recognize edges, and artificially preserve them when blowing the image up. If you overuse it, say beyond 4X in each dimension, it starts to look artificial. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
> As it happens, I can get a pretty good 8X10 from such a file, but > then I go to 12X18 (if I can live with no cropping), Well, I did a commercial job using as an experiemnt a point and shoot 4.3Mp Nikon Coolpix camera captured at maximium resolution of 240ppi into a TIFF format just to see what the camera could do. I had it enlarged to 16 x 20 and printed via a Chromira LED printer on traditional Fuji color photographic paper via the wet photographic process. The sharpness and color blew me away; I was very impressed having expected much less. In fact it was better than some of the stuff I shot of the same subject with the traditional film camera. In fact, the client bought the 16x20 test print over those images shot on film for use as a display at trade showes promoting his products and services. Since then, I went out and bought a Kodak DCS 14/n which is a full frame 35mm 14MP digital camera, which I have used on a number of commercial jobs. Thus, I fail to see why you cannot get a 12x18 or larger high 1quality print out of the camera you are using as long as you can capture it to a TIFF file format with somewhere around a 200-300 ppi resilution. > I expect that I will want to get the professional version as it seems to have more > capability. The only difference is if you are sending the images to a press for publication as a CYMK color space image or sending them spearations. The only significant difference between the standard version and the Pro version is that the standard version only works with RGB files which is what most digital files are and what most inkjet,laser, and hybrid photographic printers use, while the Pro version works with RGB and CYMK files. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 20/11/04 13:12, "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling >> within the normal ranges, it is not all that much different from >> Photoshop's Bicubic methods. It is in the extreme ranges of >> upsampling that the difference may begin to appe >> arandGFmaybegintoshine. >> >> What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why >> are you saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which >> uses lossy compression and which most digital cameras will not let >> you save captures at resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to >> limit one to capturing at resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were >> me, I would be saving the captures to Tiff format files which most >> cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi resolutions. Resolutions of 72 >> ppi are common for web use but not for printing and especially not >> for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so that the user can >> capture on one card more images (assuming that they will only be >> used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4 >> x 6 sizes at best). > > > Laurie, > > Good question. Initially, I didn't *ever* use the digital camera (a > sony 707) for anything that I would want to enlarge too much. But of > course, it happened that I took a shot here and there that I did want > to use larger. Initially, the memory available for the Sony was just > 128 Mbytes (now it is > much better) and the number of TIFFs allowed per memory stick was > quite > small as a result. > > In any case, the upshot is that I now have a number of images that I > like - > some shot as experiments (digital encourages that a lot) some shot as > records, some for other circumstances, and while I can squeeze some > of them > a great deal, I would like to find a way that is consistent. I found > that > for a time I did shoot more with the Sony - in situations where I > probably > should have been using my Contax, but had been seduced by the instant > reinforcement of the Sony - even at just 5 Mpix, lossy captured at > 1.5 Mpix. > As it happens, I can get a pretty good 8X10 from such a file, but > then I go > to 12X18 (if I can live with no cropping), and - Oh Well. > > I have experimented with the TIFF, and it does better (duh), but it > still is > no match for even my six year old Polaroid SprintScan 4000 working on > negatives and transparencies from my Contax system. I don't care > that the > Sony has a Zeiss lens too (it is the only zoom I own - the one on the > Sony). > > Of course I want a DSLR with preferably 24 Mpix, but I can't begin to > afford that right > now.IseeoneoftheCanon's8Mpixasmynextcamera > and while that will be better, it is still the same problem, just > somewhat less. So, maybe it is time to take advantage of Genuine > Fractals. Thus the question. > > ( I also have a tendency to want to see how far I can push any given > technology - I do have one 12 X 18 portrait done originally with a > 3.3 Mpix Olympus and saved as a JPEG that is startlingly good.) > > Oh, the TIFF on the Sony DSC 707 is amazingly slow at saving also - > that > isn't really a reason for anything, but a comment. > > Thanks for the positive comment about Genuine F
[filmscanners] Re: Genuine fractals?????
On 20/11/04 13:12, "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the > normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic > methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may > begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine. > > What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why are you > saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which uses lossy > compression and which most digital cameras will not let you save captures at > resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to limit one to capturing at > resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were me, I would be saving the > captures to Tiff format files which most cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi > resolutions. Resolutions of 72 ppi are common for web use but not for > printing and especially not for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so > that the user can capture on one card more images (assuming that they will > only be used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4 > x 6 sizes at best). Laurie, Good question. Initially, I didn't *ever* use the digital camera (a sony 707) for anything that I would want to enlarge too much. But of course, it happened that I took a shot here and there that I did want to use larger. Initially, the memory available for the Sony was just 128 Mbytes (now it is much better) and the number of TIFFs allowed per memory stick was quite small as a result. In any case, the upshot is that I now have a number of images that I like - some shot as experiments (digital encourages that a lot) some shot as records, some for other circumstances, and while I can squeeze some of them a great deal, I would like to find a way that is consistent. I found that for a time I did shoot more with the Sony - in situations where I probably should have been using my Contax, but had been seduced by the instant reinforcement of the Sony - even at just 5 Mpix, lossy captured at 1.5 Mpix. As it happens, I can get a pretty good 8X10 from such a file, but then I go to 12X18 (if I can live with no cropping), and - Oh Well. I have experimented with the TIFF, and it does better (duh), but it still is no match for even my six year old Polaroid SprintScan 4000 working on negatives and transparencies from my Contax system. I don't care that the Sony has a Zeiss lens too (it is the only zoom I own - the one on the Sony). Of course I want a DSLR with preferably 24 Mpix, but I can't begin to afford that right now.IseeoneoftheCanon's8Mpixasmynextcamera and while that will be better, it is still the same problem, just somewhat less. So, maybe it is time to take advantage of Genuine Fractals. Thus the question. ( I also have a tendency to want to see how far I can push any given technology - I do have one 12 X 18 portrait done originally with a 3.3 Mpix Olympus and saved as a JPEG that is startlingly good.) Oh, the TIFF on the Sony DSC 707 is amazingly slow at saving also - that isn't really a reason for anything, but a comment. Thanks for the positive comment about Genuine Fractals. I expect that I will want to get the professional version as it seems to have more capability. Brad > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My >> scanner provides very high resolution compared to my (current) >> digital camera, but >> there are times when I have taken an image with the digital camera >> that I >> would like to enlarge. I've had some success with Photoshop's >> BiCubic - it depends on the image - but I've wondered about Genuine >> Fractals. >> >> I know the theory, and it makes a lot of sense to me, but my >> experience is >> that there is often some distance between theory and implementation. >> >> So, has anyone used Genuine Fractals as a primary means of up >> sampling to >> allow much larger prints than logically should be done from an >> original like >> a 1.5 MegPixel jpeg (down from a 5 Megpixel digital photograph)? >> >> -- > -- >> Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe >> filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) >> in the message title or body >> >> >> --- >> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.798 / Virus Database: 542 - Release Date: 11/18/2004 > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.798 / Virus Database: 542 - Release Date: 11/18/2004 > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body --
[filmscanners] RE: Genuine fractals?????
I use the program frequently; and find that for most upsampling within the normal ranges, it is not all that much different from Photoshop's Bicubic methods. It is in the extreme ranges of upsampling that the difference may begin to appe arandGFmaybegintoshine. What I do not understand is, if you are concerned with quality, why are you saving your digital camera captures to a Jpeg format which uses lossy compression and which most digital cameras will not let you save captures at resolutions in the 300 ppi range but tend to limit one to capturing at resolutions less than 300 ppi. If it were me, I would be saving the captures to Tiff format files which most cameras allow to be saved at 300ppi resolutions. Resolutions of 72 ppi are common for web use but not for printing and especially not for large prints; and Jpeg format is used so that the user can capture on one card more images (assuming that they will only be used for viewing online or via monitors or will only be printed at 4 x 6 sizes at best). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Anybody using Genuine Fractals as a way to up sample images? My > scanner provides very high resolution compared to my (current) > digital camera, but > there are times when I have taken an image with the digital camera > that I > would like to enlarge. I've had some success with Photoshop's > BiCubic - it depends on the image - but I've wondered about Genuine > Fractals. > > I know the theory, and it makes a lot of sense to me, but my > experience is > that there is often some distance between theory and implementation. > > So, has anyone used Genuine Fractals as a primary means of up > sampling to > allow much larger prints than logically should be done from an > original like > a 1.5 MegPixel jpeg (down from a 5 Megpixel digital photograph)? > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.798 / Virus Database: 542 - Release Date: 11/18/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.798 / Virus Database: 542 - Release Date: 11/18/2004 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
filmscanners: Re: Genuine Fractals 2.0 or Print Pro
Given an earlier long tread about Genuine Fractals, I hope this is not considered too OT. Anyone who might have received the subject program as a bundle and didn't install and register it care to sell it? Thank you, Ebert STeele
