Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.



Fine by me - you just have to know how to work out the math (which you do).

Maris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "SKID Photography" <skid@bway.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more.


| "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." wrote:
| 
| > Screen dpi is not necessarily 72dpi - it depends on the size of the screen 
|and what resolution you set your monitor to - consider a 17" monitor at 
|600x800 pixels v. set at 1200x1600 pixels - the second will have double the 
|dpi of the first.
| >
| > Ignore dpi for web use - pay attention to the pixel dimensions of the image 
|only, e.g. 480x640 or whatever.
| 
| No matter which set of parameters (pixel count or 72 dpi) you still end up 
|with images of different sizes on monitors set on to different resolutions.  
|It finally makes no difference which set you use.  I say use whichever is more 
|comfortable
| to you.
| 
| When we scan for web viewing, we scan at 72 dpi, to whatever final dimensions 
|we want the image to be.  If we want a 4x6 print to be viewed at 8x12, we 
|would scan it at 200% and 72 dpi.  We use a 42 bit Microtek Scanmaker X12 USL 
|scanner, ant
| it works well.  On our old, cheaper 24 bit Umax we could not do this.....On 
|that one, we needed to scan at full resolution and then convert in Photoshop.
| 
| 
| Harvey Ferdschneider
| partner, SKID Photography, NYC
| 
| 




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.