Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Kodak PictureCD enhancement?

Subject: [OM] Re: Kodak PictureCD enhancement?
From: Jim Sharp <jsharp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 08:42:54 -0500
Opps. You are correct. I was talking about a PictureCD. I'm aware of the 
differences, but obviously not when I'm sleepy..
;)


Piers Hemy wrote:
> Careful with terminology here.  PhotoCD is *not* the same as Picture CD.
> 
> Photo CD gives multiple levels of resolution, with the highest resolution
> being 2048 x 3072 pixels, through 1024 x 1536; 512 x 768; 256 x 384 to 128 x
> 192.  A Pro PhotoCD adds 4096 x 6144.  The file format is proprietary PAC.
> 
> Picture CD gives a resolution of 1024 x 1536 with JPEG compression
> (according to the spec!).
> 
> Over here in UK, scanning of E6 to JPEGs (ie Picture CD) at processing is
> pretty easily available for less than $10 (and higher resolution JPEGs at
> higher prices).  I have had Photo CD produced from E6, though it cost nearly
> $40 (and the image quality was, of course, in a different league).
> 
> Piers 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Jim Sharp
> Sent: 18 June 2004 07:31
> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [OM] Re: Kodak PictureCD enhancement?
> 
> 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
> ==============================================
> 
> 
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
> 
> 



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz