I hadn't thought of it like that and okay maybe stitching them isn't the
way to go but I think for web use and small prints the quality would be
fine.
If you already have a good scanner then I can see why you wouldn't be
bothered by this, but If you don't and this does work and produce
reasonable results then I would prefer to spend the scanner money on a
lens. Also photographing slides will be far quicker than scanning them
once set up - e.g. click take photo change slide while camera writing to
card etc and its ceratinly better than no scanner or the cr*p scanner I
have.
yeh okay it maybe mad but I just have to try it, maybe first step
though is to order a print of the example I posted to see what it looks
like in Ink.
Moose wrote:
> swisspace wrote:
>
>
>>I need to experiment some more - no time at the moment unfortunately,
>>but the 50mm only got half the slide, so it would need two images
>>photostitched to get the whole slide, would it not then be nearly
>>equivalent to 4000dpi.
>>
>>
>
> I guess so. Isn't this getting pretty weird? Now you are going to make
> the heart of the image subject to the poorest lens performance, the
> edges, both of them, and also to the inevitable subtle effects of
> stitching?
>
> I'm signing off this one. Sometimes folks just gotta do what they gotta do.
>
> Moose
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|