Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: filmscanners: drum scanning services
I am afraid the message you quote, attribute to me, and respond to is not my
message but the message that I responded to. My comments were that they
might be demanding smaller files because they did not have as good a
workstation as the original poster which was capable of handling files of
the size the original poster was talking about.
I do believe your response is better and more appropriately directed at the
original poster (PAUL GRAHAM (email@example.com) of the message you
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of TREVITHO@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: drum scanning services
In a message dated 22/5/01 8:01:41 pm, email@example.com writes:
Every drum scanning bureaux here (central London) seems to think asking for
a file this big is ridiculous. One suggests 80Mb as a maximum another 120Mb.
Why? Nobody can explain to me why I would want a small file and have the
Lambda RIP invent pixels (sorry, interpolate) to make up the 400 dpi output
needed, when I have real pixels readily available on my large format
I went to the bother of shooting 5x7" precisely because I wanted the
sharpest and purest tones possible to record. Now I'm being shunted
downstream by drum operators.. >>
This is a bit like asking advice in a hi fi showroom. How good are your ears
or in this case eyes? Have you really compared the output from a 480Mb and a
120Mb file? Could you really see the difference?
I have seen scan tests done from 6 x 7 inch transparencies which were if
anything better than the original ektachromes at only 40Mb. USM was applied.
Gene Fisher did an exhibition in Canada with very good (expensive)
sponsorship and worked with the highest quality output in California. His
files were 120Mb if I remember and the prints were big from linhof panoramic
trannies. The important thing is to match the pixel lines exactly with the
output with led printers. I have gone just under your print size and the
size was only 56Mb so I have a hunch your calculation is out somewhere.