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
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
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
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
>
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
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
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
>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
