Jack Phipps wrote:
. The attached file has
several very fine lines at certain angles.
Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction
I didn't find the attachment with your post, am I the only one?
Art
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 12:49:24 -0400 Norman Unsworth
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
FWIW, I just hit your site at http://www.halftone.co.uk , no problem.
Yes, thanks, it appears to have been a transient DNS problem which only
affected people going through the root nameservers, and has now been
I did not receive it either.
Gordon
Arthur Entlich wrote:
Jack Phipps wrote:
. The attached file has
several very fine lines at certain angles.
Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction
I didn't find the attachment with your post, am I the only one?
Art
, 2001 5:05 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
Jack Phipps wrote:
. The attached file has
several very fine lines at certain angles.
Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction
I didn't find the attachment with your post, am I the only one?
Art
: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
This is what Jack sent to me - except I've used LZW compression. I've never
seen it manage compression ratios 20:1 -although its not surprising when
you see the image.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED
This is the other
email I promised that goes along with the previous email about scanning and
printing resolutions. The attached file has several very fine lines at certain
angles. Each line should print the same size. When the image improperly resized
(and resampled) you will notice a
-Original Message-
From: Rick Decker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
...
Any advice is much appreciated.
...
Okay, you asked for it. This is a posting to a Live Picture news group by
our Chief Scientist Al Edgar. It is quite off topic in that it relates to
resolutions needed for printing
Scanner Question Again
Tony,
He's right. When I click on a link to your site it gets redirected to:
http://www1.cix.co.uk/
Larry
By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up and,
instead, got sent to www.nextra.co.uk and got a lot of pop up ads
: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner
Question Again
Tony, that's a good
point about Photoshop, and other software, viewing image dimension only in
pixels, with the other sizing information being nothing more than
auxiliary instructions for use in displaying or printing the image
Rafe, thanks for your excellent response. I'm not exactly a newbie at
scanning and Photoshop, but I obviously still have a lot to learn. Thanks
for providing the definitions of "resize" and "resample." In the past, when
I would resize in Photoshop, I always left the "Resample" box checked. I
Thanks Rob...it confirms my worst fears...but I have done two 11x16 prints from
slides albeith bw and one looks real good and the other more than
adequate...although maybe I should look to the skills of the photographer (me)
for the success of the print. Heh Heh!!!
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Rick
Rick, I'm not familiar with your scanner, but I'm going to pretend that I
know what I'm talking about. So fasten your seat belt; this may be a bumpy
ride.
Another post indicated, if I read it correctly, that your scanner has a
maximum optical resolution of 3200 ppi in one direction and 1600
Rick Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Rob...it confirms my worst fears...but I have done two 11x16 prints
from
slides albeith bw and one looks real good and the other more than
adequate...although maybe I should look to the skills of the photographer
(me)
for the success of the print.
Hi Rick,
Actually, the manual is correct. The error you are making is in the
size of the file you expect you will be creating. If you are making a
scan of a 35mm film frame, you don't need to scan the whole flatbed
size, only 1 x 1.5, as you states. This doesn't make a 700+ meg
file. The
At 01:56 AM 7/8/01 EDT, Roger Miller wrote:
snip
Roger, there were a couple of points in your recent
post to Rick Decker that I'd like to comment on.
My experience with the 1640 SU is that there is
absolutely no advantage to setting 3200 dpi
resolution (as compared to 1600.) There are a
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:32:41 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Anyone else have an Epson flatbed who can comment? Scanner
manufacturers
seem to make things needlessly complicated with settings like this.
Yes, as does Photoshop. To quote myself ;) 'it will save you endless
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 4:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film Scanner Question Again
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001 12:32:41 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote
Tony, that's a good point about Photoshop, and other software, viewing image
dimension only in pixels, with the other sizing information being nothing
more than auxiliary instructions for use in displaying or printing the image.
By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up
Tony,
He's right. When I click on a link to your site it gets redirected to:
http://www1.cix.co.uk/
Larry
By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up and,
instead, got sent to www.nextra.co.uk and got a lot of pop up ads.
***
Larry
I have 3 parameters on my 1640SU scanner - Source Size , Target Size
and DPI. The manual tells me to Increase Resolution as I increase
Target Size. This can result in some horrendously large files and I
suspect there is a limit above which the file gets bigger but does not
contain any more
Rick Decker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have 3 parameters on my 1640SU scanner - Source Size , Target Size
and DPI. The manual tells me to Increase Resolution as I increase
Target Size.
Anyone else have an Epson flatbed who can comment? Scanner manufacturers
seem to make things needlessly
21 matches
Mail list logo
