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: Sharpening scanned images for printing



Austin,
After reading your reply, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



> Harvey,
>
> > So, I still maintain, that in *this* discussion, the sharpness of
> > the original has no bearing on the need to
> > sharpen scans for printing.
>
> For YOUR purposes, if you want to shoot a Holga and scan grain, that's
> fine...but most people 1) don't do that and 2) don't do that...so how is
> that relevant?
>
> > whereas sharpening a scan for offset (or whatever kind of
> > reproduction) is a technique used to properly
> > express what is actually on the original film and to overcome an
> > inherent flaw of scanning technology.
>
> You must be referring to color.  I only talk about B&W, and there is no
> "inherent flaw" in scanning B&W, if you do not scan B&W in RGB.  The
> "inherent flaw" you speak of is simply bloom and smear, which isn't really a
> "flaw" but a characteristic of how CCDs respond to different wavelengths of
> light.
>
> > >
> > > > And aren't higher bit level scans sharper than lower bit
> > > > ones?....
> > >
> > > No.  In fact, they would be softer, since there are more tonal levels.
> > > Sharpness is really nothing but contrast, as in difference in
> > tonal values.
> >
> > Then why do (real) hi bit scans require less sharpening than low
> > bit scans?
>
> I don't know (nor do I believe at this point in time, at least for B&W) that
> they do.  Perhaps you can explain why you believe they do.  For B&W, it is
> entirely counterintuitive that they would.  Clearly, a pure monotone image
> has the highest level of sharpness one can have, and adding more tones, just
> makes things less sharp.  Perhaps you can email two images to me that show
> that high bit images require less sharpening, or post them on the web?
>
> I don't believe many people can tell the difference between an image printed
> using 8 bits (providing the data occupies all 8 bit values) and one printed
> using a higher bit output...so how on earth can you tell that one does or
> doesn't require more or less sharpening?
>
> What I have said is that people who sharpen might want to look at the rest
> of the process to find the source of why they sharpen...if the image is
> fuzzy on the film, it'll be fuzzy on the scan.  Not the grain, but the
> image.  Most people don't sharpen grain, they sharpen the image.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin







 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.