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



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

I typically print using a dpi from 200 to 300 with preferences for inkjet
printing around 240 dpi; but to keep the resolution in that range while
enlarging the 35mm scan to 8x10, I frequently needed to apply interpolation
rather than just mere resizing when doing any sort of cropping.  The 2880
dpi scan of the 35mm frame was enough that full frame without cropping one
could merely resize to a nominal 8x10 and wind up with a 300 - 360 effective
optical dpi; but if one did any sort of significant cropping of the image,
the effective dpi would drop significantly - often to below 240 dpi which
was the minimum that I strived to maintain.

>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

Were these from 35mm film frames?  How were they printed (i.e., on what
printer with what settings)?   I don't know how one sees pixels in the print
so as to be able to know if they need interpolation.  I do know that certain
types of subjects when printed from 200 dpi files will tend to show a
definitely noticable dot structure in the print even when using error
diffusion and dithering ( there are other subjects such as those where there
are not broad fileds of a solid or near solid color and in which the subject
is busy where the dot pattern will not be as noticable).

>but the old scans from 35mm at 2700dpi look as sharp as optical
>enlargements from 35mm film at sizes that I can print.

But sharpness per se is not the only criteria for evaluating a good
resolution; the noticablility of a dot pattern is another.  Both are
effected by viewing distance as well.  Needless to say, a good portion of
these assessments are dependent on personal preference and tastes among
other things (i.e., "looks sharp as," "noticable dot structure or noise,"
etc.)

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Bruce
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 10:38 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: umax film scanners


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


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