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: umax film scanners


  • To: lexa@lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] Re: umax film scanners
  • From: "Bruce" <smthopr@earthlink.net>
  • Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 20:38:14 -0700
  • In-reply-to: <200307071617.19zFeG1Vu3NZFji0@eagle>
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

on 7/7/2003 4:00 PM, filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk at
filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:

> Ok, I will concede that that is possible, although that has not been my
> experience.  I found I had to employ Genuine Fractals to increase the dpi
> from the raw around 2880 dpi that my Minolta Multi Scan scanned 35mm at to
> print better than merely acceptible prints at 8x10 to 13x19 with cropping.


Laurie,

What dpi do you print at that you would need genuine fractals for an 8x10?

Or, you must crop a lot!

My 13x19 in prints were >200dpi without interpolation. While I can't add
more detail to the images, I certainly don't see any pixels in the prints
that might require interpolation.

Of course my prints from 6x9 film has much more resolution scanned at
4000dpi, but the old scans from 35mm at 2700dpi look as sharp as optical
enlargements from 35mm film at sizes that I can print.

-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

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