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]

[filmscanners] Re: PS sharpeneing


  • To: lexa@lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] Re: PS sharpeneing
  • From: "Michael O'Connor" <omichael@optonline.net>
  • Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 02:28:32 -0400
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

Hi Julian,

  I'm not Al, but I think the multistep method shows advantages on
severe downsampling. For what you described I'd tend to agree with you,
a one step method should produce better results.

  I saw advantages to multistep when I was making thumbnails for the
web, but they weren't my images at the time, and it involved images that
needed to be scaled down dimensionally as well as downsampling
resolution, and I think that's an important point. At simple massive
downsampling I would think that very finely detailed images, where the
detail must hold for the intent of the image to be conveyed, and (not
that this is likely to be a concern for you), bitmaps of any kind, would
probably benefit as well, though in these cases I really think you'd
have to adjust your settings as you went along on an image specific
basis.

  I haven't done anything similar in 7 though.

Michael O

Julian writes:

>Are there specific circumstances where the multistepmethod shows its
advantage?<



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.