It's not the screen, it's the detail you have captured scanning at 2720spi - when you zoom in the screen pixels are able to show this detail. When you zoom in on the 680dpi your screen is probably using 2 or even 3 pixels to show one pixel of the image so it will clearly not look as sharp.
Maris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Durling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 3:22 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Re: Hello, thanks, and more. | On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 16:08:40 -0400, you wrote: | | >> I guess I'm missing the point here. If I were to scan even a 4x6 | >> print at 72 dpi, and then want to display it anything larger than | >> 288x432 pixels, wouldn't interpolation be necessary? Even more with a | >> slide or a negative? | > | >But you wouldn't scan at 72dpi if you wanted larger images (pixel wise that | >is), right? | \ | | Right, of course. I was just responding and sorting out the | relationship to the much touted max screen res of 72 (or 100) dpi. I | think I used to think that meant higher resolutions offerered no | advantages becuase you couldn't see detail below that level, but now I | see it relates mostly to size. I'm still not entirely sure why high | res scans look better on a screen only capable of displaying 72dpi. I | tried a slide at 2720 and then 680 dpi, sized the two scans the same, | and the 2720 looked far better, especially under high zooms. | | | Ken
