RE: OT: scanning info for list photographers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I have used and do use Genuine Fractals.  While different people have
different assessments and opinions about the GF, I find that it generally
does a good job and holds up to its claims.  However, I have run into a few
Photoshop files that will not encode for some reason; the engineers at GF
ar4e looking into it to try and determine why.  The benefits of GF are most
noticeable when the image received large enlargements  in the range of 200
to 400 times or more.  It works by encoding or rendering the original bit
map into mathematical formulas which is what enables it to have small file
sizes and later be enlarged without visual loss.  It does not work like the
ordinary file compression schemes like jpeg or LWZ; nor does it use
interpolation like the Photoshop bicubic sampling process.

There are a couple of limitations.  It works as a plug in for Pbotoshop and
a few other current editions of a few other image editing applications and
not as an independent application; the list of applications that it is
compatible with is limited at present.  It will handle up to but no more
than 16 alpha channels associated with a given file; it will not encode
files with unflattened layers, although they tell me you can encode each
layer in its own right as an independent file.  If you want to encode as
file along with its layers, you do need to flatten the file.  Furthermore, I
am told that it will encode files along with their linked color profiles;
but on decoding, Photoshop will not read the color profile and use it.  It
is also recommended that one does not use the Unsharp Mask before encoding
the file with GF because GF will fractalize the mask along with the image
introducing artifacts and distortions.  However, one can use the Unsharp
Mask on the decoded file after it has been decoded without any apparent
problems before sending it to the printer.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com
[mailto:owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com]On Behalf Of B. Twieg
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 7:09 PM
To: epson-inkjet@leben.com
Subject: RE: OT: scanning info for list photographers


Mark and Rafe et al

I don't have a much experience in this, but I'm wondering why we can't make
good quality larger prints from 35 mm. In terms of pixels, we can get 3780
pixels by 5668 pixels from a 4000 dpi scan. If we output to Epson printers
at 300 DPI, this should give a 12.6 by 18.9 inch print. For 250 DPI(which
many of you say is sufficient), the print could be 15.1 X22.7 inches. I know
a large format camera would still give a better quality image, but doesn't
the 35 mm at least give a good quality large print? If you have a 4inch by 5
inch negative does it do any good to output to the printer at much above
360? I'm asking this because I use 35 mm and about to start doing some
larger prints.

Also, does anyone here use Genuine Fractals, who claim that their program
can allow very large and hi quality prints from file sizes of only around 20
MB? Some  on the filmscanners list have mentioned success with Genuine
Fractals. Again, I'm not hoping for the same quality of a 4X5, but I just
want very good quality up to about 11x17. I have an Epson 1200 and a
Polaroid SS 4000.

Thanks
Bill Twieg

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com [mailto:owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com]
On Behalf Of Mark Hochman
Sent:	Friday, January 21, 2000 3:11 PM
To:	epson-inkjet@leben.com
Subject:	Re: OT: scanning info for list photographers

Rafe,

I'm wondering why everyone is talking 8x10 prints only? Surely many of us
are printing larger sizes. 11x14 is certainly possible with the 1200 and EX.
And at those larger sizes (I print 17x22's on my 3000) can one really get by
with just 35mm film? Maybe to get some really great prints we need to think
more about the film sizes we use and a little less about the scanner
resolution needed to pull every last bit of info out.

That's why I posted that website in the beginning. I was interested in what
people on this list would have to say about it. I'm happy I did.

Mark Hochman Photographics

>
>Steve, I don't think any of us would dispute the
>merits of medium-format or large-format chromes
>or negatives vs. 35 mm -- in general.
>
>The only issue I might have is whether the advantages
>of either of those formats would be significant in
>an 8x10" Epson print.
>
>What I'm saying is that the printer, the ink, and
>the current state-of-the-art in inkjet printing
>will be the limiting factors -- not the tonality
>of the original chrome, or its grain.
>
>At 8x10" size, the dots on the print (from the
>printheads) and the dithering required to produce
>the illusion of contone will present the more
>daunting limits.
>
>You're quite correct in pointing out that resolution
>alone is not the end-all in evaluating a scanner.
>
>
>rafe b.


-
Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use
accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.

-
Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use
accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.

-
Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use
accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.


[Index of Archives]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Scanners]     [Gimp]     [Gimp Users]
  Powered by Linux