Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Scan Comparison Site, Call for Sample Scans

Reply
Thread Tools

Scan Comparison Site, Call for Sample Scans

 
 
Rafe B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2003
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:33:51 GMT, Ti <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>I didn't mean to make trouble, nor to cause you or anyone in these groups
>frustration. On the other hand, I think the few changes you made on your page
>make it easier to understand although you are explaining less of your reasoning.
>Sometimes, less is more.



No problem, Ti. I thought the "rule" was clear and obvious
but obviously you and Wayne didn't see it that way. The
end result is the same.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Michael J Davis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2003
Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> observed
>
>Michael J Davis wrote:
>
>> And these programs include Quicktime, MSpaint, MS Media player,
>>Photoshop, Irfanview, Netscape, etc, etc.

>
>Funny ... Netscape uses Quicktime to access TIFF on my system ... and
>Photoshop DEFINITELY reads and writes TIFF. I've never had an
>unreadable TIFF file cross my machine.


Not sure if you got my point, which is there is a wide variety of
specifications of files called TIFF out there.

The majority *can* be read by the programs I mentioned. However, every
now and then I come across one that cannot.

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
<><
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2003
>>Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> observed

>> Netscape uses Quicktime to access TIFF on my system
>> I've never had an unreadable TIFF file cross my machine.



>From: Michael J Davis ?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk
>
>Not sure if you got my point, which is there is a wide variety of
>specifications of files called TIFF out there.
>
>The majority *can* be read by the programs I mentioned. However, every
>now and then I come across one that cannot.


Michael is right, and you can always find *some* program to read a variant tiff
file (if nothing else, the program that wrote it should always work .

But there are still a lot of programs that will NOT read 16 bit tiff files or
compressed tiff files, to give two obvious examples. Corel Painter 8 comes to
mind right away, and it's supposed to be a high end graphics program. And
Adobe Photoshop now allows you to save layered tiff files ... try running one
of THOSE on Netscape, I doubt you'll be able to open it.

8 bit uncompressed tiffs usually present few problems for any graphics program,
but compressed tiffs or 16 bit tiffs or layered tiffs (or other variants)
aren't universally accepted by many graphics programs.

Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2003
Michael J Davis wrote:

> Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> observed
>
>>
>> Michael J Davis wrote:
>>
>>> And these programs include Quicktime, MSpaint, MS Media player,
>>> Photoshop, Irfanview, Netscape, etc, etc.

>>
>>
>> Funny ... Netscape uses Quicktime to access TIFF on my system ... and
>> Photoshop DEFINITELY reads and writes TIFF. I've never had an
>> unreadable TIFF file cross my machine.

>
>
> Not sure if you got my point, which is there is a wide variety of
> specifications of files called TIFF out there.
>
> The majority *can* be read by the programs I mentioned. However, every
> now and then I come across one that cannot.



....well you're an unlucky devil then ... never happened to me that I
could not open a TIFF from any source.

Alan

--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-22-2003
>From: Alan Browne http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

>you're an unlucky devil then ... never happened to me that I
>could not open a TIFF from any source.


If you have time to run a quick experiment try this ... in Photoshop save a
file as an 8 bit uncompressed tiff. Then save another copy using LZW
compression. Duplicate the first file and change the mode to 16 bits, then
save this one as a 16 bit uncompressed tiff. Finally add a couple of layers
and adjustment layers to your first file and save it as an 8 bit layered tiff
(if you have one of the more recent versions of Photoshop that supports writing
layered tiffs).

Now try and open these four tiff files with a variety of image editors and
viewers ... no doubt the first one will open OK on pretty much anything, but
you'll probably find the compressed tiff and the 16 bit tiff won't open on many
of them, and I doubt the layered tiff will open on the majority of them,
especially the older ones.

If you're writing your own files and opening them back up with the same
software then you won't see any problems, but if you're accepting files from a
variety of sources, especially if you use several different editors or viewers
to open them, it's just a matter of time before you run into a problem opening
one.

Bill
 
Reply With Quote
 
stacey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
Rafe B. wrote:


>
> Till then, your criticism is just a cheap shot.
>


Nope, that's just how you took it and how you take ANYTHING that doesn't fit
your views, as a personal insult.
--

Stacey
 
Reply With Quote
 
stacey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
Rafe B. wrote:


>
> Of course there is an actual size to the digicam
> sensor, but I'm trying to make that irrelevant by
> equating the digicam picture to a 35 mm filmscan.
>


But it IS relevant to the look of an image and why people are wanting "full
frame" sensors.

--

Stacey
 
Reply With Quote
 
stacey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
Wayne Fulton wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>>
>>It is not a *fact* nor did I ever claim it was.

>
> It is a very interesting page, and I am glad that you put it up, thank
> you.
>
> However, FWIW, I dont get the 1 inch either. It is an imaginary random
> number without meaning or basis in fact.
>
> If you are going to compare to 1/24 of the film area, then why not just
> compare with 1/24 of the digital camera pixels too? That would at least
> be equally proportional to capability to print an image.
>



And use 1/24 of every film format rather than the same size crop from med
format and large format negatives as is being taken from 35mm negs.
--

Stacey
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon Scan vs Vuescan, Nikon Scan smears detail, why (0/1) melbjer@hotmail.com Digital Photography 3 08-09-2008 02:52 AM
scans and scan jamesnorris Digital Photography 4 01-22-2007 08:23 AM
Best to scan in 48 Bit HDR? Or use 48 Bit + modify during scan? NewScanner Digital Photography 9 01-16-2007 04:07 AM
Drab Scans of Slides with Nikon LS-4000 w/Nikon Scan 3.1 john chapman Digital Photography 10 02-11-2004 01:41 PM
Progressive scan dvd's on a non-progressive scan tv jack lift DVD Video 7 12-09-2003 06:01 PM



Advertisments