Craig
I own a SS4000 and scan at full resolution and then downsize in Photoshop.
This is purely because I have heard or read somewhere that it's best to scan
at the scanner's native resolution and do any resampling using Photoshop's
bicubic produces better results.
However, I've not bothered to do any tests.
I suspect it all depends on the quality of the scanning software. Scanning
at the highest resolution you will ever need certainly would save some time.
However, the SS4000 is fast enough even for a full res scan that I usually
don't think about it. If memory serves me right, you own a SS120 (I've been
off the list for quite a while). What's the full res scanning time like on
that for medium format?
K2
>I have recently spoken to various people about scanning and it appears that
>there are two methods of obtaining a scan for a specific size output (that
>we all use anyway!). If, for instance, a 10x8 image at 300ppi is required
>from a medium format film. Now this can be scanned at the exact output size
>required or the image can be scanned at the highest quality of the scanner,
>providing a much larger file than required, then resized/scaled to the
>required output size. I use both these options depending on whether I need
>the larger file later.
>
>The question is: Is a better image produced from one method than the other?
>Is it wrong to have a large file then scale down? Or is the image slightly
>sharper, better resolved (or whatever the correct terminology may be...),
>any thoughts? Ideas? Anyone produced any tests?
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
