I'm not here to defend the scan but I will say that I don't think they
are over-compressed. You have 6MP images at 1.4-1.5MB. My Canon 5D
12.7MP images come out about 1.5-1.7MB when compressed with PhotoShop's
default quality level 8 (which is a fairly high level). If anything I
think they could have used greater compression and still delivered a
good quality image.
Of course, if they can't make a good scan in the first place then the
JPEG quality is meaningless. But it's not the compression level that's
at fault.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/18/2011 6:21 PM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> New lab with first trial roll of Ektar returned with scans as jpegs
> 3087X2048. Files are only 1.4-1.5MB or so. Previous scans were 6X9"
> at 300dpi which came out
> to 2728X1830---files were about 2MB. Something is rotten in Denmark.
> Found some totally clipped red channel from a Zinnia shot. Ok, the
> shot was perhaps 1/4 stop overexposed, but clipping the channel
> already? They have less dust then before and more pixels but just
> don't look right.
> What is up? Are these waaaay over compressed? Why would they ever
> bother with a HiRes scan if they ruin them with tiny Jpegs? Thought
> I'd better check
> here first though. I haven't had much time to scan in awhile but my
> mediocre one at work seems better.
>
> Big Sigh, Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|