[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: gimp-user
Subject: Re: slidescanner
From: Mike McNally <mmcnally () cwix ! com>
Date: 1999-01-21 19:12:27
[Download RAW message or body]
First: I apologize for making the rude comment to Vince regarding decision
making. Second: thanks for the excellant info on slidescanners Magnus.
Magnus Aldemark wrote:
> Mike McNally wrote:
> >
> > So is it worth a thousand US to process a slew of piss poor images or
> > would you prefer to cull too the nice stuff, and pay a mere pittance
> > for each vastly superior image?
> *SNIP*
> >
>
> Am I missing something here?! Even though PhotoCD scans are made with
> bad ass drum scanners, the maximum file size is only 18Mb (at Level 5).
> Sure, you can make those 72Mb Level 6-scans, but I really doubt you can
> afford it, or at least justify the cost. In sweden, one roll (36 frames)
> of L6-scans digs a $600-800 deep hole in your pocket!
>
> A 'piss poor' $600 slide scanner gives better results than a L5-scan.
> Besides, you can calibrate the scanner for your monitor and printer. A
> PhotoCD-scan requires much more manual tweaking of colors and gamma.
>
> To print a 8x10" at 300dpi you'll want about 8 million pixles (that's
> about 2400x3300 pixles). The L5-scan has about 6.2 million pixles, so
> you'll have to enlarge the image by ~30% to make it to 8x10".
>
> Don't know what you use your PhotoCD scans for, but if you just put them
> on the web, a $200 flatbed scanner with a transparency adapter will do
> just fine. You don't need the higher resolution.
>
> I'm not saying that PhotoCD sucks, but unless you're doing *very* little
> scanning or are willing to pay for L6-scans, your better off with a
> slide scanner.
>
> //Magnus
--
Cordially,
Mike McNally
Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise.
But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a
whirlpool of speculation. --John Maynard Keynes
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
First: I apologize for making the rude comment to Vince regarding decision
making. Second: thanks for the excellant info on slidescanners Magnus.
<br>
<p>Magnus Aldemark wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Mike McNally wrote:
<br>>
<br>> So is it worth a thousand US to process a slew of piss poor images
or
<br>> would you prefer to cull too the nice stuff, and pay a mere pittance
<br>> for each vastly superior image?
<br>*SNIP*
<br>>
<p>Am I missing something here?! Even though PhotoCD scans are made with
<br>bad ass drum scanners, the maximum file size is only 18Mb (at Level
5).
<br>Sure, you can make those 72Mb Level 6-scans, but I really doubt you
can
<br>afford it, or at least justify the cost. In sweden, one roll (36 frames)
<br>of L6-scans digs a $600-800 deep hole in your pocket!
<p>A 'piss poor' $600 slide scanner gives better results than a L5-scan.
<br>Besides, you can calibrate the scanner for your monitor and printer.
A
<br>PhotoCD-scan requires much more manual tweaking of colors and gamma.
<p>To print a 8x10" at 300dpi you'll want about 8 million pixles (that's
<br>about 2400x3300 pixles). The L5-scan has about 6.2 million pixles,
so
<br>you'll have to enlarge the image by ~30% to make it to 8x10".
<p>Don't know what you use your PhotoCD scans for, but if you just put
them
<br>on the web, a $200 flatbed scanner with a transparency adapter will
do
<br>just fine. You don't need the higher resolution.
<p>I'm not saying that PhotoCD sucks, but unless you're doing *very* little
<br>scanning or are willing to pay for L6-scans, your better off with a
<br>slide scanner.
<p>//Magnus</blockquote>
<pre>--
Cordially,
Mike McNally
Speculators may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of enterprise.
But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble on a
whirlpool of speculation. \
--John Maynard Keynes</pre> </html>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic