> To print 8x10 well, you need a digital image at least 2000x1600 pixels in
> size, though some say 3000x4800 is necessary for best possible quality.
> Naturally, any JPEG compression used on these images will eat into the
> quality.
>
I haven't followed these threads at all. But I now have to scan some slides.
I was going to by a Nikon Coolscan for work, but this bloke at work showed
me some stuff he scanned with a flatbed from slides. The resolution was 300
dpi. He then kept zooming in and the results looked great until zoomed in a
lot (I forget the exact amount, but is was big). Only then did it start to
show pixelation. What am I missing?
Also, he said jpeg is a mathmatical representation of the image, not the
image itself. And it is the same quality as the original. So with no
compression selected, jpeg will be about 1/8 of a tiff file. Increase
compression, and the trade off with image quality happens quick. Resave, and
it recomputes and quality drops.
The scanner was a Microtek Scanmaker X6 ELM. He seemed very happy with it.
All the results I saw were excellent, and he confirmed they were from 35mm
film. The software could automatically determine if it was a negative or a
slide.
Foxy
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|