> 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,
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
>>
>
>>
> 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
Subject:Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and
more.
- 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,
> 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
> 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
- 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
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
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
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
> > > 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
> 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
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
"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
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
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:
.
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:
|
| >
| &
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.
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&
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
> 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
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 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 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
> 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 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
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 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
> 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.
"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
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
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
44 matches
Mail list logo
