Keep in mind that 1200x1200 is about 80% fewer pixels than 2700x2700. Also,
since you mentioned that you are describing jpg file size, that the
different applications may be using differing levels of jpg compression.
Pat
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Allen" <lalle@email.com>
To: <Filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 8:23 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Size differences, JPEG
> Here's a question for Lawrence and others who might have 1200ppi flatbed
HP
> scanners (or similar):
>
> Have you noticed that JPEGed flatbed image files are considerably smaller
> than the same pictures scanned with your filmscanner?
>
> I've noticed that scans scanned from prints with HP PrecisionScan and
> JPEG-compressed about 30% are about 1/3 to 1/2 the size of the same
picture
> with the same parameters, scanned from a neg with other programs. It's
only
> a curious anamoly, but it's hard to figure out just what's going
on--recent
> and previous discussions about "losing data" have made me wonder about it,
> and I wonder if other people are seeing similar results.
>
> I realize that the 6300's 1200ppi will produce about 44% less data than my
> Acer's 2700ppi--on a "linear" count, that is. But with both pictures going
> to the same size, at the same resolution, at about the same rate of
> compression, I'd think the difference would be less.
>
> The "lost data" doesn't seem to be significant at *normal* monitor
> resolutions--little more than the difference one observes from one imaging
> program to another. Perhaps my "off-line flatbed" has just given me too
> much time to worry, and I should be spending more time with a fishing rod
in
> my hands. :-)
>
> Best regards--Lynn Allen
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
> Reserve your name now at
>
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at
