Hello Frieder!
That´s a very, very small picture, only 4,17x6,35cm at 300dpi. Of course you
can see the pixels if enlarged to monitor´s size. But the very bad pattern
you see, are not the pixels but pattern caused by a to high JPEG-compression
before reducing (or enlarging) to the actual size, I´m sure. Looks like
taken with a very cheap digital camera.
Sorry, I have no homepage (not yet), so I can´t show any pictures to the
list, but if you like, I send you an example off the list.
Jochen
----- Original Message -----
From: <frieder.faig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Digital film
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 12:32:29AM +0100, Hans-Joachim Busch wrote:
> Hello Frieder and C.H.!
>
> 2048x2048 is not so bad, about phot-CD base16, but indeed far away from
the
> film´s capability.
Yes a 4 Mio Pixels should be enough.
> The DIGIPINTS are printed digital with a solution of 300 dpi, i believe (a
> medium printing quality) and you get indeed no more "information" if
scanned
> with 1200 dpi, but the solution of the print is smooth and not
"pixelised".
> Do a scan, and you will see!!
Hmm, I´ve had some troubles whith them. I´ve some Digiprint scans, where it
is
clear visible that the source was pixelized. see:
http://studweb.studserv.uni-stuttgart.de/studweb/users/mas/mas12462/Galerien
/G01_Hahnweide/Foto_02l.jpg
Well, I guess my scanning method wasn`t the best, but pixels are visible in
the print too,
but it is a 30x20cm print. It doesn`t matter when viewd from distance. It is
a print from about 5 years
ago. It is possible that they improved Digiprints for scanning today.
> And:
> we are speaking about digital film! That means, you will work with it with
> your computer and print with your printer.
My intention is rather to show the pictures in the internet.
Frieder Faig
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <frieder.faig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [OM] Digital film
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 05, 2001 at 02:56:18PM +0100, Hans-Joachim Busch wrote:
> > Hey Mike,
> >
> > this is my digital Film:
> > FUJI PROVIA 100F, then DIGIPRINT (so called here in Germany) 13x18cm at
> the
> > drugstore, then scanned in with 1200dpi.
>
> Hmm, DIGIPRINT is already a scanned picture. I´ve scanned some DIGIPRINTS
> and
> don`t feel too happy with the quality. The digiprints I have are some
years
> old (~95). As fas as
> I know, they used a resolution of 2048 x 2048 pixels to scan the slides.
> They are 30 x 20 cm prints still looking great st the wall. But when
you`re
> close, the
> pixels are clearly visible.
> IMHO, scanning with a higher resolution as they used for the print is
waste
> of time
> (speed of image handling) But I´ve never done real testing.
>
>
> Frieder Faig
>
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|