ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)




> > One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind.  I sure
> > don't see the "astonishing" difference you're talking about,
> > even when these two images are inspected under high magnification
> > in Photoshop.

You won't see anything from "high magnification" in PS, you're looking at a
72PPI JPEG...  I don't believe that differences the tonality, which is what
the original comment was regarding, will change with high magnification.

> The Leafscan image looks clear and _glossy_, while the Nikon image looks
> _flat_.

I see a pretty large difference in the two on my calibrated high end 21"
monitor. The Nikon scan looks very flat, and the color bars for the Leaf
look correct, while the Nikons are way off.  The difference is very obvious,
but, that difference isn't necessarily in the scanner, I would believe it
probably has more to do with the operator than the scanner.

Also, realize the Leaf scan was decimated from 5080 to 4000, which isn't a
good thing anyway...then again to 72PPI for the web image.





 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.