PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 3:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: drum scanning services
In a message dated 22/5/01 8:01:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
Every drum scanning bureaux here (central London) seems to think asking for
a file this big is ridiculou
In a message dated 22/5/01 8:01:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
Every drum scanning bureaux here (central London) seems to think asking for
a file this big is ridiculous. One suggests 80Mb as a maximum another 120Mb.
Why? Nobody can explain to me why I would want a small file and have t
In a message dated 23/5/01 1:37:56 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
I think you are right, and they are saying some very strange things.
Whenever I come across drum operators (in the context of magazine repro),
they go to great lengths (4 or 5 words) to explain that my puny 4,000ppi
scans ar
> Whenever I come across drum operators (in the context of magazine repro),
> they go to great lengths (4 or 5 words) to explain that my puny 4,000ppi
> scans are no good even for a postage stamp headshot, and that they scan
> *everything* at 12,000ppi.
Whereas the drum op at a place in San F
On Tue, 22 May 2001 17:42:07 -0700 PAUL GRAHAM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>
> Have I got something wrong here? Is there nothing wrong with a 120Mb
> stepped
> up to 480 Mb? Or are drum operators simply too used to working to low
> repro
> standards? Why won't anyone do a large scan for me?
This gives me a 240Mb 8-bit file, or a 480Mb 16-bit file.
Good luck on getting 16-bit - even here in San Francisco
where one can get big scans, no one gives 16-bit, partly
because the scanner software doesn't support it. But there
seem to be hardwired expectations in people who work
hardw
I do not klnow the answer to your question; but i would surmise that maybe
they do not have as good a workstation as you and cannot handle files that
big.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of PAUL GRAHAM
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 7:42 PM
To:
