Richard Lovison wrote:
>Moose,
>
>Just to be clear. Are you implying that if I want a 840x552 image to
>be used on a webpage and nothing else, it would be better to scan at
>3200 and downsize than to just do a scan at 600 to get the best image
>quality?
>
I'm saying that has been true for most scanners in the past. I do not
know if it is true for the 3170 or other recent Epsons. It depends on
whether they scann at full resolution and then downsample for you or
take a shortcut and if they don't shortcut, how good their downsampling
algorithm is. I would try it on a couple of test images at various
resolutions. If I couldn't see any difference in the final result, I'd
go ahead with low res scanning.
By the way, if you are doing any significant post processing, to the
extent that your image editor allows it, scan at 16 bits, do the curves,
contrast, shadow/highlight, etc. adjustments first, then convert to 8 bit.
>I called Microsoft at:
>
>1-800-360-7561
>
>gave the support person the X03-..... number on the back of my Win98
>upgrade disc cardboard packet and was able to order a Win 98SE disc for
>$20 plus $5 shipping and some bunch of change for sales tax.
>
Thanks!
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|