Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina Manley wrote: > At 04:18 PM 9/21/2004, you wrote: >> So why 16.7mp? Is this just a marketing scam? When does it stop? >> >> -dan c. > > Many stock agencies require a file size of at least 48MB. For digital > files you have to interpolate to reach that, unless you have the 1DS > Mark II. > Yeah that can get pretty funny sometimes. Back in the 80s (and into the 90s) most scientific journals refused to accept computer outputted graphics. This gets a bit ridiculous when the thing you are illustrating *is* a computer graphic. I have 2 journal covers from 1988 and 1989 which are literally slides shot of a computer screen (albeit a high end one for the time) and then printed as Cibachromes. These images started out as digitized micrographs (Zeiss optics in that case :-) -- the journal editorial boards never said a word about 'substandard quality' indeed selected two images for their covers. In 1994 I used a (high end) color copier to reproduce some artwork. No one ever complained about the quality -- indeed this was selected as another cover. In 2002 I sent in a bit for bit perfect series of MRI images for publication (TIFFs). The publisher complained that the resolution wasn't high enough. I tried to explain that the resolution was the *actual* resolution of the image (512x512) to no avail. They accepted a photo of a computer screen printed as B/W RC. Doh! Jonathan