> Stan wrote:
>
> I printed a small area from the same digital image at 360 and at 400
> dpi.
>
> http://www.tallgrassimages.com/test/test_360_vs_400.jpg
>
> The "400" was not resampled from the original 4000 dpi. This is a
> snippet. The "360" was bicubic resampled in PS7 before going to the
> pri
The Minolta Pro doesn't use LEDs, but cold cathode lighting. The new
software Minolta recently released or it allow for exposure adjustments
for the R G and B components of the scan which allow for the color
variations and exposure factors from the diffusion materials to be
corrected for. So ther
I have been in correspondence with the person involved with this website
for many months now regarding this matter, and I do not find his claims
to be unreasonable. He is not claiming better resolution. He is
claiming better color fidelity with considerably less grain, dirt, dust,
scratches and o
Interesting, I wonder if this would work with other scanners!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@;halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Mikael Risedal
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2002 7:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] rebuild your scanner and get
> Intresting link
> http://www.visicon.se/mp/
Is it just me, or do these guys see an enhancement in resolution that
isn't there?
They forget to mention that scanning times also increase, and they
probably get more noise as well.
Interesting nevertheless!
Maybe I should put that diffusor back i
> Laurie Solomon wrote:
>
> You should not need to upsample at all to resize a 4x5 at 2400 ppi to
> 13x16.25 at 600ppi which is more than enough. The 720 dpi figure
> that Epson uses is really not to be taken literally since it is an
> extrapolation of the what the approximate resolution is after