Richard Lovison wrote:
>I always thought it was best to scan at the highest
>resolution and then downsample if I wanted a smaller image, say 700x460
>or so for a web jpeg image. From what I read, it seems for better
>image quality, it would be best for me to scan at around 600 to produce
>that image.
>
I don't know where you read that, but it is not necessarily true. It
depends on the scanner and the software, and is generally not true. The
way to guarantee the best possible results is to scan at the full
optical resolution and downsample from there. Some early scanners, I
don't know about current ones, just selected a sebset of the sensors in
lower resolutions. Others did downsampling, but had realtively poor
algorithims. Sure Epson, Canon, etc. are big enough to buy great
software, but look at their scanning programs, generally crummier than a
one man show like Vuescan. For software producers of image editing
software, quality of its functions is primary. Scanning at a lower
resolution will never be better and will often be worse. The
downsampling algorithims in products like PS, PSP, etc. are very
sophisticated. In PS, I recommend Fred Miranda's WPPro for downsizing.
It does a multistep process that's better than one step on PS and way
easier and quicker than the multi step process I once sort of learned.
>I should be getting my $20 SE upgrade from Microsoft within the next few days
>and if that doesn't help, Ed will lend a hand when he gets back from his
>travels.
>
So how does one go about getting a $20 Win98 SE upgrade from MS? I have
a loptop still running 98 and would like to upgrade to SE.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|