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] unsubscribe filmscanners_digest


  • To: lexa@www.lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] unsubscribe filmscanners_digest
  • From: "Dan Agee" <danagee@bellsouth.net>
  • Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 20:14:35 -0500
  • Importance: Normal
  • In-reply-to: <20031108000748.IUEC3323.imf12aec.mail.bellsouth.net@wan-a-97.adsl.alcom.co.uk>
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk



Dan
Tavernier, Fla Keys

danagee@bellsouth.net


-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_Digest_owner@halftone.co.uk]
Sent: November 7, 2003 7:00 PM
To: danagee@bellsouth.net
Subject: [filmscanners_Digest] filmscanners Digest for Sat 8 Nov, 2003


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Topic: [filmscanners] RE: OT: Resizing without resampling
====================================================
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:30:02 -0500
From: "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com>
----------------------------------------
Thanks all for clarifying=20
Ramesh

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 11:42 PM
To: Nagaraj, Ramesh
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: OT: Resizing without resampling


You are correct; it should not effect the sharpening per se, although it =
may
alter the perception of the sharpening.  When you resize without =
resampling,
you are only changing the effective resolution but not the actual
resolution.  In short if you make the image larger, you are not =
decreasing
the number of pixels in the file but merely spreading them out further =
so as
to have fewer per inch but not fewer in the image file.  When you =
resample,
you are changing the overall number of pixels in the image file.

Typically, such resizing or even resampling does not lessen the =
sharpening
making it softer for all practical purposes; but resampling can and =
often
does create artifacts which resizing alone does not.

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Nagaraj, Ramesh
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 12:19 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] OT: Resizing without resampling


I have document that is color corrected and sharpened.
Adobe's Image size dialogbox has "Pixel size" and "Document size".
After sharpening, I am using "Image size"->"Document size"(with Resample
checkbox off) to change the width, height and resolution without =
resampling.

My questions are
*Does this documennt still hold the sharpening?
*Should I have done resizing before sharpening?

I do not have backup of color corrected images.
Here I am changing the width, height and resolution without resampling; =
my
understanding is this only adds some metadata to document. I think
sharpening will get retained after this resizing.
I am doing this for printing, pls confirm whether my understanding is =
right.


Thanks
Ramesh




-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'

or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message =
title
or body


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.528 / Virus Database: 324 - Release Date: 10/16/2003

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


-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-

Topic: [filmscanners] Re: Thanks
===========================
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:22:22 +1000
From: "Peter Marquis-Kyle" <filmscanners@marquis-kyle.com.au>
----------------------------------------
Berry Ives wrote:
> Think about having someone shoot some T400 CN film at your wedding.
Then
> you can have some fun scanning and printing B&W....

Nah, too easy. What about Kodachrome. LS-30s just love Kodachrome :)

Peter Marquis-Kyle



-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-

Topic: [filmscanners] Thanks
=======================
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 22:57:28 -0700
From: Berry Ives <yvesberia@earthlink.net>
----------------------------------------
on 11/6/03 7:32 PM, robg@wordweb.com at robg@wordweb.com wrote:

> Just a quick thanks to everyone who responded about the new Pentax camera.
> It's probably unlikely I'll be able to afford one soon - much as I would
> love to avoid the issues with scanning on the LS30. :)  The reason I'm
> unlikely
> to be able to afford it soon is that I just got engaged - so there's a lot
> of other things which now have to take priority over buying camera gear!
>
> Looks like I'll be waiting a while to join the digital revolution - and
> praying my LS30 keeps working for quite a while to come!  FWIW I am
reasonably
> happy with the scanner - as long as I don't put grainy or silver based
film
> in it. :)
>
> Rob
>
> -------------
> How do you know if you never try?
> (Rob Geraghty 25 June 2002)
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> ----------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or
> body

Think about having someone shoot some T400 CN film at your wedding.  Then
you can have some fun scanning and printing B&W....


-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-

Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:53:38 -0000
From: "John Mahany" <jwmahany@tiscali.co.uk>
----------------------------------------
<< The reason I'm unlikely to be able to afford it soon is that I just got
engaged >>

Rob, take advice -- buy it now or you won't get another chance for 30 years
until the kids have left home ...

John


-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-

Topic: Thanks
========
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:32:11 +1000
From: "Rob Geraghty" <robg@wordweb.com>
----------------------------------------
Just a quick thanks to everyone who responded about the new Pentax camera=
.
 It's probably unlikely I'll be able to afford one soon - much as I would=

love to avoid the issues with scanning on the LS30. :)  The reason I'm un=
likely
to be able to afford it soon is that I just got engaged - so there's a lo=
t
of other things which now have to take priority over buying camera gear!

Looks like I'll be waiting a while to join the digital revolution - and
praying my LS30 keeps working for quite a while to come!  FWIW I am reaso=
nably
happy with the scanner - as long as I don't put grainy or silver based fi=
lm
in it. :)

Rob

-------------
How do you know if you never try?
(Rob Geraghty 25 June 2002)



-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-

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