In order to do 16 inch b&w piezo prints, I certainly need 4000. Actually I can
limp along with my old scanned files at 3175. But no lower. Even if I only did 8
x 10, you never know in the future when you'll need the extra Resolution in the
file.
Having said that, I recently took a digital camera image at low resolution (604
X 525 pixels or thereabouts) and used Genuine Fractals to add roughly 10 times
the "data" or so to it. It printed very well at 8 x 10, and passibly well at 16
inch. It printed without any grain (none there to start out with), and had an
interesting semi-soft focus look to it with slightly hard edges, which somehow
didn't look bad for a portrait.
Depends on your POV.
Robert Kehl wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tony Sleep <TonySleep@halftone.co.uk>
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:25 PM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>
> >
> > I consider the 2700ppi market a different one to the 4000ppi. The majority
> of users
> > won't need the higher res (at A4 or so there is little difference), and
> the costs of
> > a competent PC to handle the higher res scans (twice the size) are a
> deterrent. So
> > if the LS2000 already does what you want, why change it?
>
> I agree. Most people don't need 4000dpi. There seems to be very little
> difference between 2700dpi and 4000dpi for 8"x10" printing. --
Jim Hayes
Pixelography: The marriage of silicon and silver.
Images at
