Interesting Moose, but surely Walt's original has many, many more
pixels from which to take a fraction of 1/225th? That is surely one of
the main points: that you have much more picture material to use with
film, scanned with a suitable scanner.
Chris
On 28 Jul 2004, at 07:21, Moose wrote:
> Well, you know I like a challenge. And I am curious, too. I've put up a
> small site <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/WaltChall/index.htm>.
>
> I've put 6 of my images and the one Walt posted on it. In each case,
> the
> whole original image has an inset of about 1/225 of the original. The
> 1/225 is calculated from original pixels. However, I have upsized the
> insets to 200% of original pixel size, so they won't be too small to
> evaluate. So the sample I took had an area of about 28,000 pixels, but
> the inset on the site is about 4 times that in size. I know that puts
> the digital images at a little disadvantage, but so be it. And, of
> course, the origianl images have been downsampled, duh!
>
<|_:-)_|>
C M I Barker
Cambridgeshire, Great Britain.
+44 (0)7092 251126
ftog at threeshoes.co.uk
http://www.threeshoes.co.uk
http://homepage.mac.com/zuiko
... a nascent photo library.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|