Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/04/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 4/13/07 2:37 PM, "Lottermoser George" <imagist3@mac.com> typed: > Correct Mark. And while it may be true that "at this moment" printing > cannot use all the information, 5 years from now, we may wish we had > that digital data. In my experience with high end offset printing and > inkjet printing - the better the scan - the better the print. YMMV > > Certainly, in Brian's case where he said he's looking for small areas > of the scan I believe he's making the correct choice to have scans > don at maximum bit depth and on the best drum scanner available. > > Regards, > George Lottermoser > george@imagist.com > But its just an ongoing recurrent rule that everybody always forgets. They seem to remember it with audio but not video. Oversampling. Always pays off to have more info laying around than you're really using. You listen to 20 bit your system is only capable of resulting 16 but its well known it just sounds a lot better anyway and we pay the extra 4 dollars. The information is there. It somehow gets used. Call it metaphysics. Everybody knows about it. Its the hippo in your kitchen. I think of it as "the fluff". The space between your grain. You know the sound of two hands clapping what about the sound of one hand clapping? I think we know that sound. Mark Rabiner 8A/109s New York, NY markrabiner.com