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: Nikon Coolscan



>He didn't. He said "if it's pointless, the details of which version are
>moot". Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is why no
>one's answering the question, which is "why do you want GF with a scanner?"

First, even if you interpret him as not saying that, you are left with
accepting his assertion that it's pointless.  Thus, he is deciding for
someone else what is pointless and what is not.  Second, this is still
besides the point since the original questioner and the original question
was not about whether or not the GF application was useful or pointless but
about what version had been included in the bundle and if that version was a
full version or not.  The question you want answered and which Anthony
raised is an entirely different question than what was originally asked and
has only been raised after after the original question had been asked and
responded to, which is one of the reasons it was not addressed.  In my most
recent post to Anthony, I attempt to address your question.

>I don't understand the point of GF in a scanner

I am not sure you really understand what GF is and how it functions - let
alone the point of it in a scanner.  There is not point to having GF in a
scanner because that is not where it goes.  It is an image editing
application plugin and not the substitute for or an addition to the scanner
software which it may be bundled.  Typically it is bundled with Photoshop
for which it is a plugin and Photoshop happens to be bundled with the
scanner and its native scanning software.

> Does someone want to explain what's wrong with my logic???

It does not make sense to me; that is what I find wrong with it.  I am not
sure why you are comparing digital camera images with scanned images for
starters in determining the usefulness of GF.

>Which is to say, in some sense, scanner images are already upsampled. So it
doesn't make sense _to me_ to use GF on scanner images.

Scanners only upsample or downsample if you set the scanner software to do
so; and the software only does so after the scanning function has been
completed and the raw scan has been obtained.  Scanners have maximum optical
resolutions that they can scan at.  If you scan at that resolution you are
obtaining the best scan resolution wise with anything below that resolution
or above it being less than optimal and involving interpolation or
downsampling which involves the creation of artificial pixels or the
deleting of actual existing pixels from the raw scan.  The typical workflow
for most people is to scan images at the scanner's optical resolution and to
leave image editing and enhancement to external third party software like
Photoshop.  Typically such operations as resampling and resizing are left to
that stage of the workflow and even toward the end of that stage.  Any
resizing and resampling that one might do will depend for the most part on
the final output and use (.e., web monitor display, inkjet prints,
Chromira/Lightjet prints, offset printing) as large wide format hardcopies,
small wallet prints, snapshots, 8x10s. If after you scanned your medium
format film, you decided that you needed to have a 24x36 Lightjet print made
which requires a 300 dpi file; how do you propose to resize the captured
scanner image to 20x24 dimensions with a 300 dpi resolution without using
Photoshop or the GF plugin?  Are you going to go back and rescan the image
at that size and resolution?

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of David J.
Littleboy
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 8:54 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Nikon Coolscan



"Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca> wrote:


> Well, thank you for deciding what is moot for someone else.

He didn't. He said "if it's pointless, the details of which version are
moot". Makes perfect sense to me. What doesn't make sense to me is why no
one's answering the question, which is "why do you want GF with a scanner?"

I don't understand the point of GF in a scanner, although that may be
because I'm scanning MF. It looks to me that scanned images are not as good
(higher noise, lower sharpness) as digital camera images on a
pixel-per-pixel basis. A 645 scan has 6000 x 8000 pixels or so, but my
estimate is that it's only about twice (1.414 times linearly) as good as a
2000 x 3000 pixel D60 image. (4000 dpi scans of Provia look OK at 300dpi,
but no better than 200 dpi prints of D60 images.)

Which is to say, in some sense, scanner images are already upsampled. So it
doesn't make sense _to me_ to use GF on scanner images.

But I haven't tried it, so maybe it does. Does someone want to explain
what's wrong with my logic???

(For example: GF may provide _compression_ or _downsampling_ functions that
are better than what Photoshop provides. Does it? I don't know.)

>>>>>>>>
If you aren't able to answer the question being asked, or find the issue
"moot" why don't you remain "mute", rather than baiting others with
obvious comments like "if you have a Nikon Coolscan why do you need
GF?".
<<<<<<<<

That sure looks like a good question to me...

>>>>>>>>>>>>
 or they
like collecting CD-ROMS, or they want to test it out and make THEIR OWN
determination as to what value it has?
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Again, a priori, using GF on scanner images sure looks to me to make no
sense whatsoever. It's a serious waste of time to test something that makes
no sense. However, if someone is actually finding it useful, (or even claims
to be finding it useful), then it makes sense to test it. I'd certainly
learn something if someone would answer the question...

David J. Littleboy
davidjl@gol.com
Tokyo, Japan


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
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.