Re: filmscanners: On A More Positive Note

[tflash <tflash@earthlink.net>]

> I haven't looked at that scan channel-by-channel.
> 
> It's not a perfect scan, by any means, but was
> meant to show what comes out of this scanner
> with zero effort.
> 
> If you'd like a higher-res scan of any part of
> this image, I'd be happy to email it to you.

That's kind of you Rafe, but not necessary. It was really a more general
question about how the ways any given blue channel may get affected.

Thanks just the same,
Todd

  
> I used fairly severe JPG compression, thinking
> initially I'd post these images to the list.
> I changed my mind and decided to put them up
> on the web site instead.
> 
> 
> rafe b.
> 

>> Rafe,
>> 
>> I looked at your scans in PS, and they are impressive, but one thing I saw
>> raises a somewhat generic question for me.
>> 
>> The blue channel of the pad lock image shows what appears to be jpeg
>> artifacts, but none of the other channels do. I know the blue channel is
>> typically the noisiest channel of a scan, but I forget why. Isn't it because
>> the CCD elements are least sensitive to blue light? If so that is a hardware
>> thing. But jpeg is a software thing, so why would it also show up
>> predominantly in the blue channel? Is that typical of jpegs, or was it just
>> a fluke or coincidence here?