scanning large format: to the limit (and beyond)

[sunlei6662003]

Download AlbumFamiy software at http://www.albumsfamily.com to help
you
With its Image Browser, you can manage your images as easily as you
can imagine; its Image Viewer shows your images in the most advanced
Virtual Album; the PhotoEdit and Photofun functions give you wide room
to adjust your images and make all kinds of prints such as postcards,
cards, stationery and so on; what's more, the Bundled Functions allow
you to scan images and send images to your specified destination just
by a single click. With AlbumFamily, You can establish the most
beautiful albums for yourself, your family and your friends, you can
produce your own style stationery on your desk. You will never find
another application software which fits you so well and satisfy you so
much!

 

[Bart van der Wolf]

Download AlbumFamiy software at

SNIP

Cross-posted spam.

Bart

 

[jjs]

Mark the post as the beginning of the spam from China, the country with no
respect for copyright, nor little else in the domain of intellectual rights.
I would be surprised if they can be discouraged from spamming usenet.

 

[No One]

Likely the same as spam from the US - the country with no respect for
anything other than expediency.

 

[Roger Halstead]

SNIP

Cross-posted spam.

One of my pet peeves is "trial ware" that is called "share ware".
Used to be, "share ware" was something you could try and then send a
contribution if so inclined, while trial ware was... well... a tiral
you either had a limited version, or a full version that would time
out after so many days unless the proper S#, or activation code was
entered which you got by paying money.

I have no problem with either, but I wish they would use the old
naming conventions.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

 

[Gregory W Blank]

One of my pet peeves is "trial ware" that is called "share ware".
Used to be, "share ware" was something you could try and then send a
contribution if so inclined, while trial ware was... well... a tiral
you either had a limited version, or a full version that would time
out after so many days unless the proper S#, or activation code was
entered which you got by paying money.

I have no problem with either, but I wish they would use the old
naming conventions.

Maybe its 'trial" ware only if you share it without paying for it
in otherwords you get sued ;-)
--
Baltimore & DC Large Format User Website

http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

<<<For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768 resolution>>>>>

 

[RSD99]

Agree with that ...


news:[email protected]...

 

[Tom Monego]

Trying to find the name, he wrote a couple of articles in Yahoo's Epson Wide
Format group stating that he was printing at 720ppi and 1440ppi. Scans 4x5's to
4000ppi (Aztek drum) and prints at 16x20 monochrome. He teaches at the New
School in New York and tours with Cone Editions doing workshops. Been going
through archives etc. trying to get the name. But he is questioning the status
quo and backing up his theories with work. I find his work interesting and got
me looking at prints at 240, 300, 360, and 720ppi. I personally saw a
difference at 240 to 360ppi, 720 just didn't seem that much different and the
file size got huge.But I'm working at 360ppi more now. Oh yes using an Epson
7600 with the pieziochrome inksets.

Tom

 

[Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)]

Trying to find the name, he wrote a couple of articles in Yahoo's Epson Wide
Format group stating that he was printing at 720ppi and 1440ppi. Scans 4x5's to
4000ppi (Aztek drum) and prints at 16x20 monochrome. He teaches at the New
School in New York and tours with Cone Editions doing workshops. Been going
through archives etc. trying to get the name. But he is questioning the status
quo and backing up his theories with work. I find his work interesting and got
me looking at prints at 240, 300, 360, and 720ppi. I personally saw a
difference at 240 to 360ppi, 720 just didn't seem that much different and the
file size got huge.But I'm working at 360ppi more now. Oh yes using an Epson
7600 with the pieziochrome inksets.

Tom,
Ive done experiments with different ppi prints, going up to
600ppi. see:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi

I've done blind tests of people sorting prints in order
of sharpness. In good "office" or outdoor lighting almost
everyone gets the sequence correct, choosing the 600 ppi
print as sharpest. As light levels drop, it becomes more
difficult. I need to present the statistics on the
above page.

Roger

 

[Tom Monego]

Ive done experiments with different ppi prints, going up to
600ppi. see:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi

I've done blind tests of people sorting prints in order
of sharpness. In good "office" or outdoor lighting almost
everyone gets the sequence correct, choosing the 600 ppi
print as sharpest. As light levels drop, it becomes more
difficult. I need to present the statistics on the
above page.

Roger

Pushing the standard accepted norm is interesting especially in conservative
relms like large format photography and printing. As i said I saw a plateau at
360ppi but it could have been that I just didn't have the res in the scan to
begin with.

Tom

 

[Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)]

Pushing the standard accepted norm is interesting especially in conservative
relms like large format photography and printing. As i said I saw a plateau at
360ppi but it could have been that I just didn't have the res in the scan to
begin with.

Tom

It might also be limits in the printer driver.

Roger

 

[Jan Brittenson]

Tom,
Ive done experiments with different ppi prints, going up to
600ppi. see:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/printer-ppi

I've done blind tests of people sorting prints in order
of sharpness. In good "office" or outdoor lighting almost
everyone gets the sequence correct, choosing the 600 ppi
print as sharpest.

There doesn't appear to be anything resolved in the 600 ppi
print that's not in the 300 ppi. You can probably get the
same contrast by simply sharpening the 300 ppi file to the
same level. It would at least, if nothing else, make it
easier to tell the difference without having to take the
different degrees of sharpening into account as well.

 

[andrew29]

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

There doesn't appear to be anything resolved in the 600 ppi
print that's not in the 300 ppi.

The Epson 7600 renders 720ppi beautifully, but it's hard to see with
the naked eye. In http://www.littlepinkcloud.com/restest-2.jpg, the
image on the left is from a 7600 and the right a 1290. The lines are
at 360ppi and 720ppi respectively. The test image is at
http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/.

Andrew.