Not just in the quality of the final prints but in the ability to more
finely edit the image beforehand (which ought to positively effect the
final print quality, given good work).
Tris
At 10:01 PM 4/3/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Well I am MOST definately not one of them. Having owned both 2700dpi
>scanners and 4000 dpi scanners (both Polaroid and Nikon), the detail
>available in a 4000dpi scan is incredible. Unless you're making small
>prints, it does make a difference.
>
>The area where I have disagreement is 16 bit vs 8 bit. I don't think 16 bit
>gains you anything.
>
>As for a new machine, what you need is process, memory and a reasonably fast
>drive. You don't need a fancy graphics card.
>
>My most recent purchase was a box stock Dell Dimension 2400. The bottom of
>their line. It includes a P4-2.8Ghz/533 bus, 80 GB 7200 rpm drive and
>integrated sound and video. Nothing particularly fancy, but very fast. I
>use it primarily for rendering video and it is fast. You can spend more,
>but for photo editing, it is quite good. I bought it with the 128MB minimum
>and upgraded with another 512MB from other than Dell.
>
>Total investment?
>
>Under $450.
>
>Tom
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|