kopia lustrzana https://gitlab.com/sane-project/website
176 wiersze
7.3 KiB
HTML
176 wiersze
7.3 KiB
HTML
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
|
|
"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd">
|
|
<HTML>
|
|
<HEAD>
|
|
<TITLE>sane-devel: Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?</TITLE>
|
|
<META NAME="Author" CONTENT="Bob Washburne (rcwash@concentric.net)">
|
|
<META NAME="Subject" CONTENT="Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?">
|
|
</HEAD>
|
|
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" TEXT="#000000">
|
|
<H1>Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?</H1>
|
|
<!-- received="Fri Dec 8 10:57:44 2000" -->
|
|
<!-- isoreceived="20001208185744" -->
|
|
<!-- sent="Fri, 08 Dec 2000 11:22:34 -0500" -->
|
|
<!-- isosent="20001208162234" -->
|
|
<!-- name="Bob Washburne" -->
|
|
<!-- email="rcwash@concentric.net" -->
|
|
<!-- subject="Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?" -->
|
|
<!-- id="3A310ACA.E52F766D@concentric.net" -->
|
|
<!-- inreplyto="976267700.3a30a9b43d126@imp.free.fr" -->
|
|
<STRONG>From:</STRONG> Bob Washburne (<A HREF="mailto:rcwash@concentric.net?Subject=Re:%20Which%20scanners%20REALLY%20provide%2036%20bit%20output?%20HP?&In-Reply-To=<3A310ACA.E52F766D@concentric.net>"><EM>rcwash@concentric.net</EM></A>)<BR>
|
|
<STRONG>Date:</STRONG> Fri Dec 08 2000 - 08:22:34 PST
|
|
<P>
|
|
<!-- next="start" -->
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Next message:</STRONG> <A HREF="0063.html">abel deuring: "Re: The calibration function for CanoScanFB620S"</A>
|
|
<UL>
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Previous message:</STRONG> <A HREF="0061.html">G. Jaeger: "xscanimage"</A>
|
|
<LI><STRONG>In reply to:</STRONG> <A HREF="0058.html">Paul Floyd: "Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?"</A>
|
|
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Next in thread:</STRONG> <A HREF="0066.html">Stephen Williams: "Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?"</A>
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Next in thread:</STRONG> <A HREF="0059.html">Steve Underwood: "Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?"</A>
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Reply:</STRONG> <A HREF="0066.html">Stephen Williams: "Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?"</A>
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Reply:</STRONG> <A HREF="0071.html">Steve Underwood: "Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?"</A>
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Reply:</STRONG> <A HREF="0160.html">Ian Stirling: "Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?"</A>
|
|
<!-- reply="end" -->
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Messages sorted by:</STRONG>
|
|
<A HREF="date.html#62">[ date ]</A>
|
|
<A HREF="index.html#62">[ thread ]</A>
|
|
<A HREF="subject.html#62">[ subject ]</A>
|
|
<A HREF="author.html#62">[ author ]</A>
|
|
</UL>
|
|
<HR NOSHADE><P>
|
|
<!-- body="start" -->
|
|
<P>
|
|
Paul Floyd wrote:
|
|
<BR>
|
|
<EM>>
|
|
</EM><BR>
|
|
<EM>> Quoting Bob Washburne <<A HREF="mailto:rcwash@concentric.net?Subject=Re:%20Which%20scanners%20REALLY%20provide%2036%20bit%20output?%20HP?&In-Reply-To=<3A310ACA.E52F766D@concentric.net>">rcwash@concentric.net</A>>:
|
|
</EM><BR>
|
|
<EM>>
|
|
</EM><BR>
|
|
<EM>>
|
|
</EM><BR>
|
|
<EM>> What are you going to be doing with these images? Visualizing them
|
|
</EM><BR>
|
|
<EM>> won't be easy (they're certainly well beyond the scope of most
|
|
</EM><BR>
|
|
<EM>> monitors and printers). Unless you're doing research or doing high
|
|
</EM><BR>
|
|
<EM>> quality commercial printing, then 1200bpi/36bpp is overkill.
|
|
</EM><BR>
|
|
<P>You are correct. 1200bpi/36bpp is overkill for most visual
|
|
<BR>
|
|
applications.
|
|
<BR>
|
|
<P>My application is archival. I have a collection of old (about a
|
|
<BR>
|
|
century) documents and photos. They will not be around much longer.
|
|
<BR>
|
|
While it may be impractical to preserve the original document (these are
|
|
<BR>
|
|
family records, not national treasures) it should be possible to scan
|
|
<BR>
|
|
them and preserve their information. Once digitised, they can be copied
|
|
<BR>
|
|
ad infinitum with no loss in quality. CD-R's are now cheap and DVD-R's
|
|
<BR>
|
|
will soon follow.
|
|
<BR>
|
|
<P>The images are of borderline quality. Text is sometimes difficult to
|
|
<BR>
|
|
read. Photos are blurred or smeared. Everything has taken on the
|
|
<BR>
|
|
patina of age. There are some effective software packages out there for
|
|
<BR>
|
|
image enhancement. They can remove red-eye, interpret text and
|
|
<BR>
|
|
generally clean things up. Thirty, fifty years from now I'll bet that
|
|
<BR>
|
|
they will perform magic - removing coffee stains, filling in destroyed
|
|
<BR>
|
|
areas, sharpening a blurred photo.
|
|
<BR>
|
|
<P>But any software enhansement package must deal with the raw data and the
|
|
<BR>
|
|
originals will no longer be around to rescan. So it is imperative that
|
|
<BR>
|
|
I extract as much data as possible now while I still can. Ideally, I
|
|
<BR>
|
|
would like to scan photos down to the emulsion resolution which would
|
|
<BR>
|
|
represent all the information possible. For 19th century photography I
|
|
<BR>
|
|
believe 1200 dpi comes very close to this.
|
|
<BR>
|
|
<P>So I wish to scan at resolutions greater then I can see so that future
|
|
<BR>
|
|
software will have the additional information needed to make
|
|
<BR>
|
|
enhansements which I CAN see.
|
|
<BR>
|
|
<P>And that is part of my fustration. I can't *see* if my scanner is doing
|
|
<BR>
|
|
its job. I must trust that I am getting additional information and not,
|
|
<BR>
|
|
as you correctly indicated, just four more bits of noise. This was one
|
|
<BR>
|
|
of the draws of the HP 5370C. It claimed to be using 42 bpp internally
|
|
<BR>
|
|
and outputting a clean 36 bpp. But the software which comes with the
|
|
<BR>
|
|
scanner is only interested in visual effects.
|
|
<BR>
|
|
<P>Which all leads back to my original question: does anybody have
|
|
<BR>
|
|
experiance with a scanner which shows that it *really* does provide
|
|
<BR>
|
|
these specs?
|
|
<BR>
|
|
<P>Thanks much.
|
|
<BR>
|
|
<P>Bob Washburne
|
|
<BR>
|
|
<P><EM>>
|
|
</EM><BR>
|
|
<EM>> Regards
|
|
</EM><BR>
|
|
<EM>> Paul
|
|
</EM><BR>
|
|
<P><PRE>
|
|
--
|
|
Source code, list archive, and docs: <A HREF="http://www.mostang.com/sane/">http://www.mostang.com/sane/</A>
|
|
To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail <A HREF="mailto:majordomo@mostang.com?Subject=Re:%20Which%20scanners%20REALLY%20provide%2036%20bit%20output?%20HP?&In-Reply-To=<3A310ACA.E52F766D@concentric.net>">majordomo@mostang.com</A>
|
|
</PRE>
|
|
<P><!-- body="end" -->
|
|
<HR NOSHADE>
|
|
<UL>
|
|
<!-- next="start" -->
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Next message:</STRONG> <A HREF="0063.html">abel deuring: "Re: The calibration function for CanoScanFB620S"</A>
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Previous message:</STRONG> <A HREF="0061.html">G. Jaeger: "xscanimage"</A>
|
|
<LI><STRONG>In reply to:</STRONG> <A HREF="0058.html">Paul Floyd: "Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?"</A>
|
|
<!-- nextthread="start" -->
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Next in thread:</STRONG> <A HREF="0066.html">Stephen Williams: "Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?"</A>
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Next in thread:</STRONG> <A HREF="0059.html">Steve Underwood: "Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?"</A>
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Reply:</STRONG> <A HREF="0066.html">Stephen Williams: "Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?"</A>
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Reply:</STRONG> <A HREF="0071.html">Steve Underwood: "Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?"</A>
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Reply:</STRONG> <A HREF="0160.html">Ian Stirling: "Re: Which scanners REALLY provide 36 bit output? HP?"</A>
|
|
<!-- reply="end" -->
|
|
<LI><STRONG>Messages sorted by:</STRONG>
|
|
<A HREF="date.html#62">[ date ]</A>
|
|
<A HREF="index.html#62">[ thread ]</A>
|
|
<A HREF="subject.html#62">[ subject ]</A>
|
|
<A HREF="author.html#62">[ author ]</A>
|
|
</UL>
|
|
<!-- trailer="footer" -->
|
|
<HR NOSHADE>
|
|
<P>
|
|
<SMALL>
|
|
<EM>
|
|
This archive was generated by <A HREF="http://www.hypermail.org/">hypermail 2b29</A>
|
|
: <EM>Fri Dec 08 2000 - 11:01:07 PST</EM>
|
|
</EM>
|
|
</SMALL>
|
|
</BODY>
|
|
</HTML>
|