Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (11718)	1/16/1998 10:31:00 PM
From: jhild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

Bill, that's a very generous offer. I have some experience with scanning and color correction, having worked with a small company here that developed calibrated color profiles for scanners, monitors and printers. I am pretty proficient with Photoshop as well and expect to do a bit of retouching as well. Having done so much myself, I appreciate the work that is really involved in getting good results. So, I really and truly appreciate your offer. I would agree that most of the sub-1000 scanners are not quite up to to doing the best job possible. Though once I start to go hi-res, storage becomes more of a problem for me. I have 5Gb now, already with 70% used, but I am not expecting to get into bigger drives until Windows 98 (99?) stabilizes a bit, and I get a new system. But I don't have a fax machine and scanning for that purpose would be useful. As well as posting via e-mail to friends, pictures of the kids and such. Besides I think a lower cost scanner may give more to work with in an image than a digital camera. So right now I am not looking to invest a great deal in getting stuff that is on a fairly fast obselesence track.

To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (11718)	1/16/1998 11:35:00 PM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

Bill, in re scanners <$1,000.. A couple weeks ago I bought an IBM Color Flatbed scanner, 600x1200 dpi optical resolution, 30 bit color, 10 bit grayscale, up to 8-1/2"x14" scans. Comes with Adobe PhotoDeluxe scanning/photo-tweaking software (consumer version of PhotoShop), parallel port connection with pass-thru for printer(s)...$249 I've played with it fairly extensively, trying different things. I have not printed anything yet that I scanned though. My main use for it is to scan photographs. Example: During a vacation in Scandinavia in 1990, I spent several days with distant cousins (three girls). I took quite a few pictures, sometimes with three of them together, sometimes one person per picture. So for instance, there are two pictures where one girl in each picture has her "best" expression, etc., so I wanted to just scan in the one face from each of the two pictures..With 600 dpi ("physical scanning elements") horizontally, it works perfect: On the picture the face is approx 1" across: but if you have your screen set to 800x600, without any enlargement whatsoever, the picture takes up 3/4 the width of the screen, and since the actual scanned area is 1-1/4" high on the photograph, the photograph is actually too tall to view 100% on the screen at once...so I had to tweak the size of the pic file with the software, which is quite simple. Now the detail on this pic is fairly good - the only limiting factor is the pic itself - when you are viewing something 12" across on the screen that's originally 1" across, you find that even nice 35mm pictures which look pretty sharp are, in fact not razor sharp. But take another pic I scanned, in which the face was about 2" across..I specified 300 dpi, scan at 100%, yielding a pic file which views 600 pixels across..the detail is incredibly sharp and focused. So IMO MrB, a 600x1200 scanner is excellent for scanning photos. It helps to tweak the "gamma" by telling it to "auto-select", then the contrasts, color richnesses etc., come out the best without endlessly trying to tweak the thing "by hand" with the software later. Now granted I haven't printed anything yet...so I don't know anything about that yet. But I have an idea I need to have LOTS of free disk space laying around unused for printing a scanned portrait file suitable for printing on say an Epson Stylus 600 (720x1400 dpi) ink-jet color printer. From what I've read so far though, there isn't a direct correlation between dpi in the picture file to dpi that gets printed on say a 720x1400 printer. However there is a direct correlation between scanned dpi and ppi (pixels per inch) on screen. Okay, that's my spiel. -G- DK