P3D Re: RE: Digital vs. Film

[Tom Deering <tmd@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>"If you want to "see and compare the results from Kodak's (expensive)
>>digital processing equipment", then get a Photo-CD.  It seems unfair to
>>judge Kodak's "very expensive equipment" using the compressed,
>>necessarily crappy images you received squeezed on a diskette."
>
>It's also seems unfair to suggest we compare anything close to 3000x2000
>pixel images to the 640X480 pixels provided by many digital cameras.

The original message stated the author wanted to "see and compare the
results from Kodak's (expensive) digital processing equipment".  I
correctly pointed out that Kodak's equipment is quite capable of making
very nice images, when the size of the disk is not a limiting factor.

>Besides who needs images of such size? Certainly not for web work -- not
>for anaglyphs, not on computers

These comments are unrelated to the stated goal of testing "Kodak's
(expensive) digital processing equipment."  Who needs images 3000x2000?
Try making a magazine with compressed photos from a diskette.

>Just in case anyone thinks they can, on a PC, reduce giant size digital
>images down to a usable size, all the while hoping to retain something of
>the larger image's superior quality are, I'm afraid, in for a
>disappointment.  I've tried such experiments often with no visible
>advantage.

Simply not true.  First, the Photo-CD image is lossless, so there are no
jpeg artifacts.  Second, extra pixels means more information.  You can size
a 3000 pixel image down to 1000, but you can't size a 600 pixel image up to
1000.

Regards,

Tom



------------------------------