Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
It's not the screen, it's the detail you have captured scanning at 2720spi -
when you zoom in the screen pixels are able to show this detail. When you zoom
in on the 680dpi your screen is probably using 2 or even 3 pixels to show one
pixel of the image so it will clearly not look as sharp.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Durling" <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.
| On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:08:40 -0400, you wrote:
| >> I guess I'm missing the point here. If I were to scan even a 4x6
| >> print at 72 dpi, and then want to display it anything larger than
| >> 288x432 pixels, wouldn't interpolation be necessary? Even more with a
| >> slide or a negative?
| >But you wouldn't scan at 72dpi if you wanted larger images (pixel wise that
| >is), right?
| Right, of course. I was just responding and sorting out the
| relationship to the much touted max screen res of 72 (or 100) dpi. I
| think I used to think that meant higher resolutions offerered no
| advantages becuase you couldn't see detail below that level, but now I
| see it relates mostly to size. I'm still not entirely sure why high
| res scans look better on a screen only capable of displaying 72dpi. I
| tried a slide at 2720 and then 680 dpi, sized the two scans the same,
| and the 2720 looked far better, especially under high zooms.