Re: Re:DigiCam file vs 35mm scan

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

 



<x-charset iso-8859-1>
----- Original Message -----
From: <CDTobie@aol.com>
> Blowing such a scan up will get you lots of artifacts any way you cut it;
and
> its what film photographers are used to dealing with, especially from 35mm
> film.  Compared to that the same number of pixels from a good digital camera
> capture are much more enlargable; more in line with a medium resolution scan
> of large format film, where every pixel is significant data, and no grain or
> grain related noise is in the file.

David,

I have a question and hope you, or anyone, may have an answer.  I haven't used
a digital camera yet, and look forward to it.  But something I've noticed
puzzles me.  Much of the offset repro I see from digital camera files are
"fuzzy" for lack of a better descriptor.  A current example are the Olympus
E-10 ads running everywhere.  I would think it's down to file size and some
rule about running twice the minimum size needed, but I've seen this effect
with files I know to be from medium format backs too.  Anyway, it's so common
I can't believe it's caused by file size only.  I remember some reference to
"rosette" moirés some time ago, and I've seen these degrade "crispness", and
what I'm asking about presently is a similar degradation to what might best be
called image "crispness", but no rosettes visible.  Any ideas what's going on
here?

TIA,

Dave King

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

</x-charset>

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