You may be in a test market or maybe they've not upgraded the lab in my
area. I just got a PhotoCD made from a roll last week and the scans were
still 1536 X 1024. The quality might be slightly better than it was a
year ago but it's still dismal around here...
--
Jim
Curtis P. Hedman wrote:
> I may be stoned for admitting it, but I often have a Kodak PictureCD made
> when I have a roll of film processed, to have a convenient set of digital
> images if I don't feel like firing up my film scanner...
>
> Anyway, I just noticed that Kodak seems to have done a "Stealth upgrade" of
> the product... as initially introduced, the images were scanned at 1536 x
> 1024 pixels, or about 1.5 megapixels; a recently processed roll resulted in
> 2100 x 1400 pixel images, or about 2.8 megapixels... a decent improvement!
> Has anyone else noticed this? I'm surprised that Kodak has not publicized
> this enhancement... unless I live in a test market of some sort! For what
> its worth, APS film is scanned at 2100 x 1200 pixels. Since the APS frame
> is only 30mm vs the 36mm of 35mm film, it would appear that the PictureCD
> scanner is not set to a fixed pixel per inch resolution - another curios
> feature...
>
> A puzzle to be sure - anyone have any light to shine on the subject?
>
> Curt
>
> P.S. Anyone know of a service that will do whole roll scanning of
> transparency film at a price anywhere near what the PictureCDs now cost
> ($3.99 above the cost of processing and 1 set of prints at my local Target
> store)?
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|