]
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@;halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 11:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Suggestions for scanning 4x5 transparencies
> The "400" was not resampled from the original 4000 dpi. This is a
> snippet. The "360&q
> 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
> 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
By stating a factor of 8, are you saying that a 300 ppi file would be the
minimum acceptable ( 2400/8)?
Stan
You wrote:
--
This kind of remind me of the enlarging lens debate. Which lens to choose.
If I remember correctly, some lens in the Rodenstock line were good
