Tomasz wrote:
>- scanning of negatives for reference before selling them to clients
What format are the films you want to scan? 35mm? Larger?
>next several years. That' s why I'm in need for thorough knowledge about
>film scanner and scanning, Photoshop 5.0, Dmax, white and black point,
14
>bi
Tomasz Zakrzewski wrote
> Preferably with 4000dpi, and Nkon-specific dust removing
> feature. That was simply wishful thinking :-) BTW when is
> Nikon going to produce such a machine?
The current Nikons models have a track record of stepper motor failure
and many LS-30 users have also had probl
Austin Franklin wrote:
I believe you owe me an apology.
>
> Austin
>
I've apologized for you more times than you are aware.
Art
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners
HI all -
And thanks very much! Whew, I've read through the posts 3 times now,
and the two immediate questions that are coming up are:
1) Bits. I need some clarification on what the siginificance of all
the different bit-rates are about for color. For example, one person
mentioned that ther
>Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I'll understand
> >all this. ;-)
At 1:08 PM -0700 10/22/01, Ken Durling wrote:
>I guess I'm missing the point here. If I were to scan even a 4x6
>print at 72 dpi, and then want to display it anything larger than
>288x432 pixels, wouldn't
> 1) Bits. I need some clarification on what the siginificance of all
> the different bit-rates are about for color.
You don't mean "rates". Rate is a measure of speed (or periodicity)...and
doesn't apply here.
> For example, one person
> mentioned that there is no real advantage in 16-bit ov
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 00:16:38 -0400, you wrote:
>> 1) Bits. I need some clarification on what the siginificance of all
>> the different bit-rates are about for color.
>
>You don't mean "rates". Rate is a measure of speed (or periodicity)...and
>doesn't apply here.
>
Right! I think I meant "rat
> How do you resize an image without losing/adding pixels?
It depends on what your output is. If you are outputting for a computer
monitor...then you HAVE to lose pixels...since monitors are typically 100
pixels per inch, and if you didn't resize, your image would be well outside
the bounds of t
> 1) Bits. I need some clarification on what the siginificance of all
> the different bit-rates are about for color.
>
> 2) Sizing. Now this is just specifying the pixel dimension of the
> image, correct? Without changing the resolution.
> Starting to read the www.scantips pages. Haven'
I'll expand on Austin's comments just a little as sometimes a second explanation can make things even clearer.
A pixel is made up of three parts, each representing red, green, or blue. If the brightness of each of those colors is represented by an 8-bit binary number, then you really have enough
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 01:05:24 -0400, you wrote:
>That is a case where you certainly can try it. I would suggest trying both
>methods, and see which works better for you. Some scanners do a fantastic
>job at giving you great scans at reduced DPI, and others are quite bad.
>Only through a test of
Comments are below:
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 10:53 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
| HI all -
|
| And thanks very much! Whew, I'
> Whether in the real world it is preferable to adjust image colors
> using 16 bits per channel rather than 8 bits per channel has been
> a long standing argument.
It is a fact that it is "preferable" to make tonal moves using 16 bits per
channel. Whether you can detect the difference is yet ano
In a message dated 10/21/2001 9:54:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How do you resize an image without losing/adding pixels? Just by
specifying the inch dimension? That's something I've never been clear
about - whether choosing inch, cm, pixels or whatever in the size
dial
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:53:10 -0700, you wrote:
>with HP Photosmart
>with my 5200C.
I meant HP PrecisionScan - I've never owned a Photosmart!
Ken
Ken wrote:
>1) Bits. I need some clarification on what the siginificance
> of all the different bit-rates are about for color.
[snip]
> The Canon software only offers scanning in 24-bit color
AFAIK the 2710 produces more than 24 bits RGB at the A/D. 42 maybe? If
you're using something like Vues
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 14:44:50 +1000, you wrote:
>The only way you can change the "dimensions" of an image without changing
>the number of pixels is to change the dpi. For example, a 300x300 pixel
>image at 300 dpi will print 1" x 1" on paper. If you change the dpi to
>150 dpi, it will print 2" x
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 22:15:16 -0700, I wrote:
> For example, Photo House offers a
>choice of "Interchange Format (JPEG/JFIF)" ;
Oops, left out the other choice, which I just noticed, which is "TIFF
JPEG (JTIF). Is that something like the TIFF LZ compression you have
been mentioning? When migh
"Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you're resizing an image from 3000 pixels in the width to
>> 750 pixels, you're throwing away 75% of the data!
> Aha, okay, see my other reply. I'm slowly coming out of the fog here.
> So what's the most "lossless" way to get my 30MB TIFF file to the
> If you're making web images, the dpi for the screen is 72dpi.
> End of story.
I'd suggest more like 100dpi these days. The Mac used to "maintain" 72dpi
simply by specific monitor/video card settings, but I don't know if they
still do that today.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:12:10 +1000, you wrote:
> I try to keep my jpeg files inside 50K for general web use. You can
>make quite reasonably sized images on the screen that as a file are inside
>that limit. Waiting for larger files to download gets boring, and people on
>the web tend to have sho
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 19:12:10 +1000, you wrote:
>If you're making web images, the dpi for the screen is 72dpi. End of story.
Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I'll understand
all this. ;-)
Ken
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:39:14 -0700, you wrote:
>Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I'll understand
>all this. ;-)
>
>
Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned
at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to
get it up to a go
> Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned
> at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to
> get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct?
No, not interpolation. Interpolation ADDS data. Decimation removes data,
so scanning
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:49:22 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned
>> at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to
>> get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct?
>
>No, not interpolation. Interpol
> I guess I'm missing the point here. If I were to scan even a 4x6
> print at 72 dpi, and then want to display it anything larger than
> 288x432 pixels, wouldn't interpolation be necessary? Even more with a
> slide or a negative?
But you wouldn't scan at 72dpi if you wanted larger images (pixel
On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:08:40 -0400, you wrote:
>> I guess I'm missing the point here. If I were to scan even a 4x6
>> print at 72 dpi, and then want to display it anything larger than
>> 288x432 pixels, wouldn't interpolation be necessary? Even more with a
>> slide or a negative?
>
>But you wou
> I'm still not entirely sure why high
> res scans look better on a screen only capable of displaying 72dpi.
I assume you mean when you scan them at 27xx and then downsize them to
72dpi, that comes out far better than scanning them AT 72dpi? That's easy,
if that's the case. The PS software does
Ken Durling wrote:
> Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I'll understand
> all this. ;-)
My advice is to ignore any references to dpi when scanning for the web.
I once had trouble grasping the concepts but Wayne Fultons site
www.scantips.com was a big help. In particular look
rling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 2:47 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
| On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 12:39:14 -0700, you wrote:
|
| >Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap. One day I&
pixel dimensions of the image only, e.g.
480x640 or whatever.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
| On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:49:22 -0400, you wrote:
|
| >
| &
k as sharp.
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
| On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:08:40 -0400, you wrote:
Austin Franklin wrote:
> > Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned
> > at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to
> > get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct?
>
> No, not interpolation. Interpolation ADDS data. Deci
"Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." wrote:
> Screen dpi is not necessarily 72dpi - it depends on the size of the screen and what
>resolution you set your monitor to - consider a 17" monitor at 600x800 pixels v. set
>at 1200x1600 pixels - the second will have double the dpi of the first.
>
> Ignore dpi for w
Your scanner software is probably scanning at full resolution then
downsampling to meet the output specs you gave it. This is actually
a good thing when implemented properly because it makes the UI easy:
just tell it what results you want and it does all the calculating
and manipulating aut
> We
> use a 42 bit Microtek Scanmaker X12 USL scanner, ant
> it works well. On our old, cheaper 24 bit Umax we could not do
> this.On that one, we needed to scan at full resolution and
> then convert in Photoshop.
Exactly what I was saying. There is no set rule which is better for "any"
s
> > > Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned
> > > at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to
> > > get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct?
> >
> > No, not interpolation. Interpolation ADDS data. Decimation
> remo
Fine by me - you just have to know how to work out the math (which you do).
Maris
- Original Message -
From: "SKID Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: H
OK, now I have a better understanding of your question.
The big problem most people have is seeing images are composed of two
things, dimension (the size in inches, for instance) and then resolution
(the number of pixels that make up each inch.)
This makes things more complex than necessary. Th
Harvey,
If I'm reading your comments (below) correctly, the only difference
between your old scanner and your new one in this matter is how the
software operates. A 72 dpi scan at 200% making a 8 x 12" screen image
is the exact same thing as a 144 dpi scan of a 4 x 6" print. And you
don't need
As mentioned, the 72 dpi number is a bit long in the tooth these days.
It was a Mac standard used for screen fonts, but is no longer valid for
most monitors which use higher resolutions. Larger monitors (17, 19, or
21") often function at 80-100 dpi or even slightly higher.
Now, 72 dpi (or even 1
Arthur,
You bring up interesting points. I have never actually done side by side comparisons
of the PS or scanner
downsampling to see if there is a noticeable difference. However, I have not
comprehended a difference by 'my
memory' (always a scary proposition) going either way. I will try to
Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and
more.
Arthur,
You bring up interesting points. I have never actually done side by side
comparisons of the PS or scanner
> One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor
> Insight is the
> ability to use one of several
> decimation
^
> techniques from nearest
> neighbor(lowest quality) to bicubic(highest quality also longer). Your
> choice would depend on use.
> David
David,
Im very
PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and
more.
> One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor
> Insight is the
> ability to use one of several
> decimation
^
> techniques from nearest
> neighbor(lowest q
- Original Message -
From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 11:56 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
> One of the new features of the upcoming release of P
> Strictly speaking decimation means remove 1 in 10 hence the "dec" so it's
> definitely NOT the correct term even if some illiterate yank coined the
> phrase.
> ;-)
Strictly speaking, in a normal English conversation (not engineering) you
are entirely correct, sir.
> Personally I use down-sampl
c·i·ma·tion /"de-s&-'mA-sh&n/ noun
Bottom of Form
I think you will find there is room for both uses
Modestly & Illiterately,
David
-Original Message-
From: Steve Greenbank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 9:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor Insight is
> the
> ability to use one of several decimation techniques from nearest
> neighbor(lowest quality) to bicubic(highest quality also longer). Your
> choice would depend on use.
> David
>
Actually, the best technique use sinc
001 11:56 PM
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
>
>
>
>
>>One of the new features of the upcoming release of Polacolor
>>Insight is the
>>ability to use one of several
>>
>
>>decimation
>>
>
>>
> Pretty violent term for describing removal of some pixels, if you ask
> me... I too use downsample and upsample, and I think they both are
> easier to understand.
>
> Art
Yes, it's roots seem to be quite violent. For people who design and work
with digital imaging systems, it's a very common,
Austin wrote:
> I'd suggest more like 100dpi these days. The Mac used
> to "maintain" 72dpi simply by specific monitor/video
> card settings, but I don't know if they still do that today.
I was giving a rule of thumb for the majority of computer users not for
power users like those with film sca
Bill wrote:
> Your scanner software is probably scanning at
> full resolution then downsampling to meet the
> output specs you gave it.
This sort of thing has been stated a number of times recently. I can't
really be sure for any scanner other than mine, but the choice of resolution
*does* mak
Ken wrote:
>Right, but scan at 72 dpi and you get crap.
Not off a print! :)
> One day I'll understand all this. ;-)
It's a matter of getting your head around the resolutions of different devices
and media.
Rob
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
Ken wrote:
>Hold on - thanks to you all, maybe I DO understand this. If scanned
>at 72 dpi, even a 4x6 print would need quite a bit of interpolation to
>get it up to a good screen size, ergo crap.Is that correct?
6"x4" at 72dpi gives you 432 x 238 pixels. That's half of an 800x600 pixel
scr
Thumbs Plus (a shareware browser and processor) has these options for resizing (OK
Austin, 'decimate'!), in order of low to high quality:
- nearest neighbour
- bi-linear
- resample
- bicubic
My experiments revealed that the first 2 weren't very good (I think they were only
there for those with
> Thumbs Plus (a shareware browser and processor) has these
> options for resizing (OK Austin, 'decimate'!),
Thanks! ;-) Basically, decimate means to take away, interpolate means to
add...so when you resize, it depends on whether you go up or down.
Actually, the algorithms should be different f
> AFAIK digital cameras produce files which are set to 72 dpi. Can anyone
> who has one check this? I know it's been driving my brother nuts
> when people
> send digicam pics at screen resolutions and expect him to print them in
> a magazine!
My Fuji 4700 has the file set to 300PPI...at 2400 x
Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> AFAIK digital cameras produce files which are set to 72 dpi. Can anyone
> who has one check this? I know it's been driving my brother nuts when people
> send digicam pics at screen resolutions and expect him to print them in
> a magazine!
Our Sony Digicam gives images a
60 matches
Mail list logo
