I just had a look at the files from my last film scan done by my local lab,
images are 3070x2048 and file sizes (jpeg) vary from about 1MB up to 4MB
depending on the image, so comparable to what you are seeing. The average
punter probably only looks at the resolution (as they do for digital
cameras) and doesn't notice clipping. My understanding is that the scans
are only really of a quality for the lab to produce a set of "acceptable"
looking 6"x4" prints. From my experience some of these scans are ok, but if
I'm after something better I re-scan at home (Epson V700).
...Wayne
>
> 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/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|