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: Nikon Coolscan




"Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca> wrote:


> Well, thank you for deciding what is moot for someone else.

He didn't. He said "if it's pointless, the details of which version are
moot". Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is why no
one's answering the question, which is "why do you want GF with a scanner?"

I don't understand the point of GF in a scanner, although that may be
because I'm scanning MF. It looks to me that scanned images are not as good
(higher noise, lower sharpness) as digital camera images on a
pixel-per-pixel basis. A 645 scan has 6000 x 8000 pixels or so, but my
estimate is that it's only about twice (1.414 times linearly) as good as a
2000 x 3000 pixel D60 image. (4000 dpi scans of Provia look OK at 300dpi,
but no better than 200 dpi prints of D60 images.)

Which is to say, in some sense, scanner images are already upsampled. So it
doesn't make sense _to me_ to use GF on scanner images.

But I haven't tried it, so maybe it does. Does someone want to explain
what's wrong with my logic???

(For example: GF may provide _compression_ or _downsampling_ functions that
are better than what Photoshop provides. Does it? I don't know.)

>>>>>>>>
If you aren't able to answer the question being asked, or find the issue
"moot" why don't you remain "mute", rather than baiting others with
obvious comments like "if you have a Nikon Coolscan why do you need
GF?".
<<<<<<<<

That sure looks like a good question to me...

>>>>>>>>>>>>
 or they
like collecting CD-ROMS, or they want to test it out and make THEIR OWN
determination as to what value it has?
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Again, a priori, using GF on scanner images sure looks to me to make no
sense whatsoever. It's a serious waste of time to test something that makes
no sense. However, if someone is actually finding it useful, (or even claims
to be finding it useful), then it makes sense to test it. I'd certainly
learn something if someone would answer the question...

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.