Hi Boris, On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 14:51:00 +0200, Boris Liberman wrote:
> Both you and Doug scan at 4000 dpi resulting in roughly 24 MP files. > So no matter which DSLR you were to choose from available today, you > will be getting at most half of the pixels you usually get. Well, that's true, but digital capture could very well give me a better image to work with, even at half the number of pixels. I don't know, because I haven't messed with high-end (6+ MP) digital cameras yet. Don't overlook the string of messages between me and Herb and Paul about graininess and speckles and all of the other stuff that goes along with scanning at 4k dpi. The thing that concerns me about starting with less resolution is getting big prints. If the image starts out with less crap in it, though, stuff like that fractal scaling program (?Fractal Dimensions?) might work a lot better. > As for 1500x1000 scans from the lab. Well, I printed few of them on my > Epson 790 Photo Stylus. I asked for half A4 size which would be > roughly 15x21 cm - about 6" x 8". It looked reasonable for putting > some of the educational shots onto the wall of our daughter's room... That's pretty much the way I see those images. I print them 20-up on 8.5" x 11" paper to use as pseudo contact sheets. I use them to put stuff on the Web, too. But they're not useful for largish prints, above maybe 6" x 4". TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
