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



David writes:

> 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.

I have the same impression, although part of this is the scanner's fault,
not film's fault.  I do see individual details that are only about a pixel
wide on some scans, but the contrast is low, which produces lower sharpness.
I know (from examining the same film images under a microscope) that there
is actually slightly more detail in the image than the scanner is picking up
at 4000 dpi, at least for images taken on a tripod with a good lens and
under good conditions, on slow, sharp film.

> 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.

Yes.  Which prompted my question.  Scanned images are already slightly
blurry at their nominal resolution; why upsample them?  Additionally,
scanned images already have plenty of resolution for most purposes, even in
35mm; so again, why upsample them?

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

I have the same question.  Perhaps GF does something other than just
upsampling.  But if it is limited to upsampling, I don't see the point.



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