James, What you see on the screen is just a representation of the file at 72dpi or whatever your screen resolution is set at. It isn't the actual file since QuickDraw (sorry, I'm using the Mac as an example) throws out (rhetorically) the extra pixels in order to display the file at the requested size on the screen. And it does a nice job for that. By zooming in to 100% you then see the actually pixels (well....), rather than the approximation. Don't always go by what you see on the screen. But don't assume that if you resample to 72dpi that your print will suddenly be as nice as the screen. It won't. As to whether the original was soft, or if the Lino scans soft, well, that's for you to say. regards, billy > From: owner-epson-inkjet-digest@leben.com (Epson-Inkjet-Digest) > Reply-To: epson-inkjet@leben.com > Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 00:17:35 -0600 > To: epson-inkjet-digest@leben.com > Subject: Epson-Inkjet-Digest V2000 #171 > > Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 23:05:17 -0700 > From: James Irelan <james@redweather.com> > Subject: Re: 1600 scanner > >> >> CDTobie wrote: > >> >> Sharpness is inverse to resolution... try using appropriate unsharp masking, >> and you should be able to get excellent results. > > Speak to me of this, if you would. It might explain something. > > 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. > > James - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.