ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












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

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

[filmscanners] RE: Correct/best methods of scanning



Craig,

> The question is: Is a better image produced from one method than
> the other?

It depends on the scanner, the scanner operator, how good you are with
Photoshop, and what tool you use to downsample in PS, and how well you use
that tool.

For MOST scanners, I'd say you are better doing it in PS.  For the scanner I
am most familiar with, the Leafscan, it does a superb job at scanning to
output size, as it has three DSP processors that do the downsampling, and
apparently the algorithm is exceptionally good.

So, the answer to your question is not a simple one.  You should simply test
it out for your self, and determine which method works best for you.

Regards,

Austin

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