resolution boosting sharpening

  • Thread starter Thread starter N Miller
  • Start date Start date
N

N Miller

Bart van der Wolf wrote:

Assuming that your 120 negs are sharp, printing them at a minimum of 120
ppi resolution wouldn't do them justice. You would probably get better
results by scanning at 2400 ppi, and applying some resolution boosting
sharpening. Mind you, this assumes the filmholder positions the film at
approx. optimal distance above the platen.


I've just spent a few hours and a fair amount of paper scanning a few
120 negs at 1200 and 2400. They went through PS with the same
parameters. I printed the equivalent of 10x10, my usual size. I see no
differences whatsoever. Maybe that's because I don't know what's meant
by resolution boosting sharpness. I assume it's different from the
unsharp mask (which I use).


N Miller
 
N Miller wrote
(in article said:
Bart van der Wolf wrote:

Assuming that your 120 negs are sharp, printing them at a minimum of 120
ppi resolution wouldn't do them justice. You would probably get better
results by scanning at 2400 ppi, and applying some resolution boosting
sharpening. Mind you, this assumes the filmholder positions the film at
approx. optimal distance above the platen.
Click to expand...

You really should learn how to quote properly. The above should
have two '>' chars, not one.

I thought Thunderbird was a better newsreader than that (albeit
worse than many).
I've just spent a few hours and a fair amount of paper scanning a few
120 negs at 1200 and 2400. They went through PS with the same
parameters. I printed the equivalent of 10x10, my usual size. I see no
differences whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Then you answered it for yourself. If you're never going to
need a print (or onscreen image) of higher quality than that,
and aren't likely to purchase a printer capable of showing more
detail, then there is no reason for you to waste time scanning
at higher res. OTOH, if you wish to archive those shots
digitally, you may regret not having a better dpi "digital
negative" to fall back on. (I hate the term, since it's really
a "positive" ... semantics)
 
Randy said:
Then you answered it for yourself. If you're never going to
need a print (or onscreen image) of higher quality than that,
and aren't likely to purchase a printer capable of showing more
detail, then there is no reason for you to waste time scanning
at higher res. OTOH, if you wish to archive those shots
digitally, you may regret not having a better dpi "digital
negative" to fall back on. (I hate the term, since it's really
a "positive" ... semantics)
Click to expand...
But my problem is that I _do_ intend to get a better printer (from 1270
to 2200) but I'm doing so because of the ink sets that are available and
which I hope would improve my prints. I hadn't thought about what else
a better printer can do for me. I think I have to go back to school and
learn some basics.

nm
 
luminouslandscape.com

N said:
But my problem is that I _do_ intend to get a better printer (from 1270
to 2200) but I'm doing so because of the ink sets that are available and
which I hope would improve my prints. I hadn't thought about what else
a better printer can do for me. I think I have to go back to school and
learn some basics.

nm
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top