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]

[filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes



I would convert and sharpen before compressing.  It may or may not help -
I'm not an expert - but it would deal with any artifacts that might possibly
be introduced in the conversion process itself.  I would not compress,
re-open and recompress absent drastic sharpening artifacts in the compressed
JPG.

Maris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>
To: <mlidaka@ameritech.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:56 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Color spaces for different purposes


>It would probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen.
Theoretically maybe; but out of curiosity, how does one do this in actuality
when one would have to first decompress the JPG file before one could carry
out the sharpening operations.  Afterwhich, one would then recompress the
file again in its altered state which would be what typically causes the
artifacts and deterioration in JPG files to begin with?

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Maris V. Lidaka
Sr.
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:33 AM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes


Probably the artifacts created in the compression process.  It would
probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen.

Maris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Durling" <kdurling@earthlink.net>
To: <mlidaka@ameritech.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:05 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes


On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 16:17:30 +0100, you wrote:

>Personally I do some sharpening for an archival image that may end up going
>to different outputs. This is only a minor sharpening to restore the
>sharpness of the original which is almost always softened by the scanning
>process. Most images will benefit from further sharpening when targeting
for
>a specific output but this should not really be done for an archival copy.


Speaking of sharpening - I think I understand this in a sort of sloppy
"intuitive" way, but could someone offer a technical explanation of
why sharpening has so much more visible effect on jpegs as opposed to
TIFFs?


Ken Durling

Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio:
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.