[filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints

["KARL SCHULMEISTERS" <karlsch@verizon.net>]

Upsampling always results in some loss - it might be artifacts, it might be
loss of tonal gradation.  My math was late night error.  My practical
experience is that I have yet to see a digicam image of less than 10+mPixels
that looks as good printed at 11x17 as 35mm scanned at 4000dpi printed to
the same level.  It might simply be that the regularity of digital
artifacting is more noticeable than grain.  It just doesn't look that good.

And this includes images others have raved about.  It may also be a matter
of what you look for in an image and how experience/biased the viewing eye
is.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Frost" <bob@frost.name>
To: <karlsch@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:01 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints


Eugene,

240 dpi is not all that is needed, because the Epson driver upsamples that
(or any other dpi you send it) to 720 dpi (desktop printers), using Nearest
Neighbour type upsampling. So 720 dpi is what is needed by the driver. The
question is can you get better results by upsampling to 720dpi yourself
(using QI for example that upsamples with various superior methods -
bicubic, lanczos, vector, etc). You seem to be suggesting that you can't,
but others suggest you can.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene A La Lancette PhD MD" <lalancet@massmed.org>


240 dpi is all that is needed.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
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