[filmscanners] RE: scanning at less than optical res

2004-12-09 Thread LAURIE SOLOMON
>If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the 4800 >possible data points per inch and throws three out of every four away, or >only samples every fourth possible point. So you are only getting one >quarter of the possible data from the film. So why scan at large format if >you

[filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res

2004-12-10 Thread Bob Frost
Laurie, I sent that reply to someone on another list who was using large-format film but then scanning it at one-quarter of the optical resolution of his scanner since he didn't want large files. There was some doubt as to whether I was correct, so I thought I would see what this filmscanners list

[filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res

2004-12-10 Thread Arthur Entlich
I believe what Bob is stating is that some scanners literally skip lines or sensors and just record the spaced information, rather than taking the full resolution and then averaging the pixels out via a series of algorithms. This, of course, would introduce a great many sampling errors, since it i

[filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res

2004-12-10 Thread Laurie Solomon
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 5:58 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res I believe what Bob is stating is that some scanners literally skip lines or sensors and just record the spaced information, rather than taking the full resolution and then averaging the pixels out

[filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res

2004-12-10 Thread Laurie Solomon
Thanks, that clarifies things a great deal. - Original Message - From: "Bob Frost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 4:40 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res Laurie, I sent that reply to someo

[filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res

2004-12-11 Thread Arthur Entlich
scanning." > > > - Original Message - > From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 5:58 AM > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res > > > I believe what Bob i

[filmscanners] RE: scanning at less than optical res

2004-12-11 Thread Laurie Solomon
suppose >> he really meant to say - now that I re-examine it - "high resolution >> scanning" as contrasted to "large format scanning." >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To

[filmscanners] Re: scanning at less than optical res

2004-12-12 Thread Arthur Entlich
t;>>"large format scanning" with respect to the discussion. I suppose >>>he really meant to say - now that I re-examine it - "high resolution >>>scanning" as contrasted to "large format scanning." >>> >>> >>>- Orig