I took a close look at those two horse images in the PDF file on page 280,
by magnifying the PDF as much as possible, so that the individual pixels
were easily visible as squares. What I found was that the image that he said
had been scanned at a higher resolution was actually rendered in the
You are certainly right, Paul. Good catch. If Margulis is such an expert,
how could he let that one slip by?
On 8/18/02 2:48 AM, Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I took a close look at those two horse images in the PDF file on page 280,
by magnifying the PDF as much as possible, so
My understanding is that Toronto, Canada, is and has been off and on the
most expensive place in North America, followed by New York and, at one
time, Vancouver (right after the Chinese flight from Hong Kong). Most of
the large American cities are more expensive than the smaller ones in the
Ops! This was suppose to be a private email and not addressed to the list;
my error. Sorry if it inconvenienced anyone.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 10:26 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think, perhaps, you meant
... may not be able to reproduce the original details correctly, ...
or, at least, that wording makes more sense to me.
No, what I meant is that instead of making each pixel the average of the
entire area it represents, it may instead be taking a sample
Hi Anthony,
I know you say you leave them at the scanned
resolutions, but doesn't that put you at the
mercy of what ever the browser does, and may
degrade your image?
I suppose so, but I'm pretty much at the mercy of the browser and the
visitor's computer, anyway.
Yes, certainly to
Arthur,
And, since I don't wish to make this exchange into something similar to
what I was trying to head off to begin with,
What YOU were trying to do was simply selfishly and arrogantly use this
group as a vehicle for YOUR personal vendetta against me. You're not near
as smart as you
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree, multistep downsampling can give a better image, than a single
downsample, at least in PS. I've done that for images that are
for the web
(100 PPI is what I target), and I believe they do look better.
Why are you targeting
When I have a large image in the browser, a lot of times it
re-sizes the image, after it's done loading it...
That behaviour is an optional 'feature' of Internet Explorer 6.
You can turn it
off (though I now can't find how I did it!)
Hi Peter,
Well, if you remember how, please let me
I think the two images were published in reverse order relevant to the
caption.
...Bob
- Original Message -
From: Paul D. DeRocco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:48 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Scanning with too much resolution?
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 behaviour is an optional 'feature' of Internet Explorer 6.
You can turn it
off (though I now can't find how I did it!)
Hi Peter,
Well, if you remember how, please let me know!
Hello,
In the IE 6 Spanish release you can turn it off by selecting the 'Tools'
menu, 'Internet
Austin writes:
But, if you have a, say, 4x6 image at 100 DPI,
that won't get re-sampled by the browser,
providing the window is large enough to handle
400 x 600 pixels, right???
As far as I know, most browsers never resample an image to accommodate a
window that is too small; they just put
Would you please take this infantile nonsense elsewhere please. It's
tiresome.
George Harrison
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe
Hello All,
My apologies for the delay in responding but I receive the
Filmscanners info in Digest form (once per day).
To answer some questions: I do have a cover for the scanner (since Day
1), so dust is not an issue. Also, the glow around white objects in
the scan of the slide surrounds the
Hi Anthony,
Austin writes:
But, if you have a, say, 4x6 image at 100 DPI,
that won't get re-sampled by the browser,
providing the window is large enough to handle
400 x 600 pixels, right???
As far as I know, most browsers never resample an image to accommodate a
window that is too
on 8/18/02 04:00 PM PST, Robert DeCandido, PhD wrote:
I have a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 (not the Plus version) and am using
Vuescan. When I scan a slide (either Kodachrome or Provia/35mm), the
white areas (such as a building illuminated by the sun; or pages of an
open book) in the scan will
At 12:00 AM 02/08/19 +0100, you wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I had a photosmart scanner that exhibited this effect. There is a bit of a
same problem with my scan speed scanner however it is not as pronounced.
It seems to be most prevalent when I would scan from a
Hi Andre,
I used Champion as my exclusive processor when I lived in Montreal.
Unfortunately, I don't think anyone in Victoria gives a fig what they
charge in Montreal... they'd probably just tell me to ship my film
there! ;-)
Thanks for the suggestion, however.
Art
Andre Moreau wrote:
19 matches
Mail list logo
