|
|
|
|
||||
|
Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. |
 |
|
|||||||
| Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed. |
|
|
Thread Tools |
08-11-2003, 08:25 AM
|
#1 |
|
Too lazy to set a custom title
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,393
|
Anyone here scan directly from negatives?
I just got myself a CanoScan 5000F, which is a 2400x1200dpi (true res) flatbed scanner that also supports scanning of negatives and slides.
If I scan a standard 35mm negative at 300dpi then it spits out a 1613x1051 pixel image. If it's really scanning at 300dpi, then shouldn't the longest side be only about 350-400 pixels, to match the physical size of the frame? Is the scanner doing dodgy software 'extrapolation' that is just wasting memory and processing time? Scans at 300dpi also look fairly blurry (like an oil painting filter has been applied) even though the output image is relatively large. Another reason I think that it's doing software enlarging. Just curious... I'm still learning so I may have misunderstood how dpi works. |
|
|
