Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/04/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_0099_01BE8CC2.9F84D7E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I find that the higher the resolution, the higher quality the scan. I =
get much more detail
and far less degradation of the image after manipulations such as =
sharpening and saturating.
Francesco
----- Original Message -----=20
From: jahudson=20
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us=20
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] scan comparison
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Francesco=20
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us=20
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 11:17 AM
Subject: [Leica] scan comparison
If some of you have a spare minute, could you please check out these =
two scans and
tell me which one looks better OVERALL, in terms of color accuracy, =
skin tones, sharpness,=20
contrast, brightness, etc. Thanks a million!
http://www.photorealm.com/F/sharon01.jpg
http://www.photorealm.com/F/sharon02.jpg
Francesco
fls@san.rr.com
Is there any advantage to having both files at 1350dpi when 72dpi is =
the maximum resolution most computer screens can cope with?
Of the two images, sharon02 is my preference. The facial skin tone =
in sharon01 is a bit washed out but the skin tone of the chest and arms =
in 01 I find is more realistic than that in 02. Would it be possible to =
bring the facial skin tone in 01 up to that of the chest and arms in 01. =
If that was possible, I would much prefer 01 over 02. As 01 stands right =
now I think that the folds in, and the texture of, the skin in 01 is =
more lifelike than in 02.=20
jh =20
- ------=_NextPart_000_0099_01BE8CC2.9F84D7E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2014.210" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I find that the higher the =
resolution, the=20
higher quality the scan. I get much more detail</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>and far less degradation of the image =
after=20
manipulations such as sharpening and saturating.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Francesco</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A href=3D"mailto:jahudson@direct.ca" =
title=3Djahudson@direct.ca>jahudson</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us"=20
=
title=3Dleica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.=
us</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, April 21, 1999 =
5:41=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Leica] scan=20
comparison</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A href=3D"mailto:fls@san.rr.com" =
title=3Dfls@san.rr.com>Francesco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A=20
href=3D"mailto:leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us"=20
=
title=3Dleica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.=
us</A>=20
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, April 21, =
1999 11:17=20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Leica] scan =
comparison</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>If some of you have a spare minute, =
could you=20
please check out these two scans and</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>tell me which one looks better =
OVERALL, in=20
terms of color accuracy, skin tones, sharpness, </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>contrast, brightness, etc. =
Thanks a=20
million!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.photorealm.com/F/sharon01.jpg">http://www.photorealm.c=
om/F/sharon01.jpg</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.photorealm.com/F/sharon02.jpg">http://www.photorealm.c=
om/F/sharon02.jpg</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Francesco</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"mailto:fls@san.rr.com">fls@san.rr.com</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Is there any advantage to having both files at 1350dpi when =
72dpi is=20
the maximum resolution most computer screens can cope with?</DIV>
<DIV>Of the two images, sharon02 is my preference. The facial skin =
tone in=20
sharon01 is a bit washed out but the skin tone of the chest and arms =
in 01 I=20
find is more realistic than that in 02. Would it be possible to =
bring=20
the facial skin tone in 01 up to that of the chest and arms in =
01. If=20
that was possible, I would much prefer 01 over 02. As 01 stands =
right now I=20
think that the folds in, and the texture of, the skin in 01 is more =
lifelike=20
than in 02. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>jh </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_0099_01BE8CC2.9F84D7E0--