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: Scanning with too much resolution? (was: PS sharpening...)



Hi Anthony,

> > But I wonder if the loss of detail can be
> > remedied by the multistage sharpening/downsampling
> > scheme that some people have been advocating.
>
> I think it can; in fact, I think that's the utility of multistep
> downsampling.

I agree, multistep downsampling can give a better image, than a single
downsample, at least in PS.  I've done that for images that are for the web
(100 PPI is what I target), and I believe they do look better.  I have not
tried sharpening though.

I know you say you leave them at the scanned resolutions, but doesn't that
put you at the mercy of what ever the browser does, and may degrade your
image?  When I have a "large" image in the browser, a lot of times it
re-sizes the image, after it's done loading it...

Austin

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