From: Ricardo Wildberger Lisboa (wildberger@svn.com.br)
Date: 05/13/01-10:06:38 PM Z
Dear B,
But in what cases do you have to scan an image big as a magazine cover in
full resolution ? You need only to scan on a level of resolution enough to
produce a 300 dpi image at the final format. On that sense if you want to
get a 16x20 image enlarged from a 8x10 original, all you have to do is to
scan it at 1200 dpi resolution. If it ends up at 236.71 mb, you can compress
it to fit a 100 mb Zip, or save it on a CD (indeed two and a half without
any compression), or even send the file by e-mail.
Concerning the high cost of an imagesetter, you don't need to afford one,
but what a good service bureau charges you to print on film a specific well
produced file. Isn't it ?
Anyway, I have to agree that nothing compares to the continuous tone you get
on film.
Ricardo
----- Original Message -----
From: <bmaxey1@juno.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Cc: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2001 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Digitan(sic) Negs
> >>First let me say I'm pretty quick to disagree with anyone who slights
> >>digital processes as a feasible or viable means to alternative process
> >>production. I just know too much about the beast to believe otherwise.
> >>Having said that, I want it to be clear I believe ALL methods are
> >>valuable, valid, and valiant. Everybody here is serious or dedicated
> (or
> >>slightly deranged).
>
> I think my point was not too clear about digital Vs. Film. I know many
> use digital negatives, but if you compare digital to film is the clear
> winner in many cases. Not from a speed issue - you got me there. Digital
> is the clear winner, and you can do your work from a nice, clean,
> chemical free environment. Sometimes I think working chemical free is
> more desirable.
>
> >>However, there are still points you make which are either missing my
> >>point(S) or are generally inaccurate with regards to digital negatives.
> >>By the term "digital negatives" I'm also referring to image setter
> >>negatives made on high resolution lith film by extremely precise laser
> >>technology -- what is standard in the printing industry (where I used
> to work).
>
> True, but who here can afford an image setter? Not as many as can afford
> a less expensive output device. I have a scanner - an Epson. I bought it
> because yes, I can't live without digital - I need to scan drawings and
> photographs of obsolete motorcycle parts. No I can't photograph again, as
> they are not manufactured. So I do need a digital system to earn a
> living.
>
> However, I wondered how big of a file I would end up with at the
> scanner's full resolution. I scanned a catalog cover, in black and white
> and the file size was huge. At 1200 DPI, file size was 236.71 mb. At 7200
> DPI it was 8.32 Gigs, and at full resolution of 9600 DPI it was over 14
> Gigs. This was B/W - color was far, far worse.
>
> So I will put this simple question out to everyone who wants to answer.
> Please convince me about this, but if I want to work at the highest
> possible resolution, for the best possible level of quality, What do I
> do? I certainly can't scan the tens of thousands of color images I have
> to scan for inclusion in a catalog at highest resolution.
>
> Do the math - what kind of computer system do I purchase that will handle
> a huge catalog of parts and literature containing even 500 images if
> every image is at full resolution?
>
> I do not think I can. Even in B/W, it can't easily be done. So I must use
> smaller file sizes. This means with all this great digital technology, I
> can't use it to its best advantage. Personally, it makes little sense to
> me to have systems that can't be used to their fullest.
>
> With my 4 x 5, everything I need is in the negative. I can print it at
> its maximum resolution, and will always be able to do so. Regardless of
> how good digital gets, I will always have a negative that I do not have
> to worry about. As we all know, what is good today will be replaced
> tomorrow with more quality and more cost. Film is not this way. Digital
> will always mean changing equipment as it gets better and to stay ahead
> of the quality curve, you will be forced into replacing your stuff.
>
> With film, I can store hundreds of 8 x 10 negatives in my existing files
> and I already have them at their highest possible resolution
>
> I do not want an argument, but I would like someone to at least consider
> my position that film many advantages over digital systems. Remember, we
> all can't or would want to try to afford digital systems that offer the
> best possible quality.
>
> Now, as for digital negatives, I would guess that most here are
> satisfied. I can't really argue that we all need extreme quality in all
> cases. I will also admit that if someone is satisfied with what they are
> getting, perhaps that is enough. For me, however, I will always use film
> because of many factors.
>
> B.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST