[filmscanners] Re: Correct/best methods of scanning

["Roger Eritja" <eritja@terra.es>]

>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?

This a very interesting issue and I was just thinking about raising it to
the list, as we are having an enriching discussion between photographers
here. Some friends say that scanning must be done to the exact final size,
because every resampling is destructive. As an example, one of them called
for scanning a pure black, thick line drawn on a pure white background, and
then resample/downsize via bicubic or whatever: the borders turn grey,
which is a color not present in the original image. He concluded that
downsizing blends colours and creates artifacts (but, since he's operating
an Imacon Flextight maybe he doesn't really need to increase detail).

Other colleagues are scanning at maximum resolution -to capture all the
detail the scanner can resolve- and downsizing later. Here, the point is to
apply some techniques recently discussed on the list via wise sharpening
filters between resizings.

I have carried out several simple on-screen tests with my LS4000 and
couldn't really tell a difference, but again this might be tested on large
printed copies. Any thoughts from the real experts here?

Roger




Dr. Roger Eritja

Biologist
Mosquito Control Service - reritja@elbaixllobregat.net
(www.elbaixllobregat.net)
Nature Photography - roger@eritja.com (www.eritja.com)
Tel. +34 936 401 399
FAX +34 936 300 142


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