Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.

["Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <mlidaka@ameritech.net>]

It's not the screen, it's the detail you have captured scanning at 2720spi - 
when you zoom in the screen pixels are able to show this detail.  When you zoom 
in on the 680dpi your screen is probably using 2 or even 3 pixels to show one 
pixel of the image so it will clearly not look as sharp.

Maris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Durling" <kdurling@earthlink.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
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:
| 
| >> 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 wise that
| >is), right?
| | 
| Right, of course.  I was just responding and sorting out the
| relationship to the much touted max screen res of 72 (or 100) dpi.   I
| think I used to think that meant higher resolutions offerered no
| advantages becuase you couldn't see detail below that level, but now I
| see it relates mostly to size.  I'm still not entirely sure why high
| res scans look better on a screen only capable of displaying 72dpi.  I
| tried a slide at 2720 and then 680 dpi, sized the two scans the same,
| and the 2720 looked far better, especially under high zooms.  
| 
| 
| Ken