|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
The critical question for me is this. I KNOW how good the 1200 Saphir Ultra is at 1200 DPI. Not QUITE good enough for hassleblad size negatives. Is the Epson 1600 sharper? Noticeably? If not, Epson is being very dishonest when they state that the 1600 has a TRUE optical resolution of 1600 DPI. Jerry "Gary L. Hunt" wrote: > At 11:05 PM 2/20/2000 -0700, you wrote: > >Recently I thought I would experiment with 4x5 scans with my LinoUltra, which > >scans at 1000ppi. I used some color Polaroid film. When I scanned, the scan > >looked great at 16% or whatever it was that fit easily on my monitor. When I > >enlarged to 100%, however, the scan got softer and softer until it just seemed > >flat out of focus. I thought well, I'm rusty with the 4x5 camera, and it was a > >little windy that day- I guess my focus was just off. But then I didn't > >understand why it looked really good at the lower percentage. > > Sounds like a perceptual thing to me. When I print out test images at > a small size, they always look "sharper" than when I do the full size > prints. I think it's just that the "visible blur" isn't visible at lower > magnification. > > Gary Hunt <firstname.lastname@example.org> > > - > 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.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users