Agreed, resolution is not the problem, I've had some excellent 8"x12" prints
made from such scans when the dynamic range in the original scene meant that
the scans were not clipped at the top or bottom ends or overexpanded. The
lab I deal with tend to like to produce a scan that will produce a "snappy"
print (contrasty & saturated) which is often not the result I want.
...Wayne
>
> At highest typical print resolution of 300 dpi a 4x6 only needs
> 1200x1800. 3070x2048 is enough to make a pretty good 8x10 with 256
> dpi.
> The size of the files says that the JPEG compression is at a high
> quality level. Some shops print at 300 but Mpix (and I assume)
> Miller's
> print at 250. So the resolution should be more than acceptable. But
> that doesn't say anything about the actual scan quality.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 9/19/2011 1:45 AM, Wayne Harridge wrote:
> > I just had a look at the files from my last film scan done by my
> local lab,
> > images are 3070x2048 and file sizes (jpeg) vary from about 1MB up to
> 4MB
> > depending on the image, so comparable to what you are seeing. The
> average
> > punter probably only looks at the resolution (as they do for digital
> > cameras) and doesn't notice clipping. My understanding is that the
> scans
> > are only really of a quality for the lab to produce a set of
> "acceptable"
> > looking 6"x4" prints. From my experience some of these scans are ok,
> but if
> > I'm after something better I re-scan at home (Epson V700).
> >
> > ...Wayne
> >
> >
> >>
> >> New lab with first trial roll of Ektar returned with scans as jpegs
> >> 3087X2048. Files are only 1.4-1.5MB or so. Previous scans were
> 6X9"
> >> at 300dpi which came out
> >> to 2728X1830---files were about 2MB. Something is rotten in
> Denmark.
> >> Found some totally clipped red channel from a Zinnia shot. Ok, the
> >> shot was perhaps 1/4 stop overexposed, but clipping the channel
> >> already? They have less dust then before and more pixels but just
> >> don't look right.
> >> What is up? Are these waaaay over compressed? Why would they ever
> >> bother with a HiRes scan if they ruin them with tiny Jpegs? Thought
> >> I'd better check
> >> here first though. I haven't had much time to scan in awhile but my
> >> mediocre one at work seems better.
> >>
> >> Big Sigh, Mike
> >> --
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> >> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> >> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> >
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|