Digital BW, The Print

Dana -

I scanned in at 4800 and resized  to 300 - same as when I scanned at  
12,800. Then I zoomed them both in at 100% and looked at the  
difference. It's what I see anyway. What can I say?
AnnMarie



AnnMarie Tornabene
www.annmarietornabene.net




On Jan 3, 2008, at 4:11 PM, Dana H. Myers wrote:

> AnnMarie Tornabene wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, this is what I gathered from running the test. I scanned in at
>> 4800 dpi, then scanned the same negative at 12,800 dpi and as I
>> suspected, got a better result from the latter. There is a huge
>> amount of pixelation, especially in the skin tone, and some quick
>> jumps between tones when I scanned in at 4800. Then I tried scanning
>> at 3200 because sometimes there is a key resolution to use that works
>> and anything above it gives similar results. Well, it did look
>> slightly better than the 4800 dpi scan, but still not as nice as the
>> 12,800.
>
> Wait; did you convert to 300dpi after scanning at the various
> resolutions?  How are you comparing the various scans?
>
> Since the scanner is limited to 4800 dpi resolution at best,
> the 12,800 dpi scan isn't showing you anything that isn't in
> the 4800 dpi scan - those additional pixels in the 12,800 dpi
> scan are the result of interpolation.
>
> I'm not saying that the 12,800 dpi scan doesn't look better,
> I'm just curious how you're comparing them.
>
> In your first note, you said that you scan at high res, then
> resize to 300 dpi no matter what, so I'm curious if that's
> how you did the above tests.
>
> Cheers,
> Dana
>
>






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]