Re: information contained in surrogates

From: Frank Dunn (frank@BRAZEN.DEMON.CO.UK)
Date: Tue Jun 12 2001 - 21:03:31 CDT

  • Next message: Trudy Levy: "Re: information contained in surrogates" 

    Message-Id: <200106130204.TAA09294@dns.ccit.arizona.edu>
Date:         Wed, 13 Jun 2001 03:03:31 +0100
From: Frank Dunn <mailto:frank@BRAZEN.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: information contained in surrogates
To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU

    <pre> The answer, or at least one of them, is in the question. You don't know if an image has an object or person in it which will be required in the future but isn't the primary subject of the image at capture. So for zooming in think cropping to a small area of an image then outputting that at a required resolution and final image size for magazine quality reproduction.

    I don't recall if the list has the early archives on-line but about 6 or 7 years ago or so (and many brane cells later) there was a very detailed and highly informative series of threads on effective emulsion resolution which got kicked off when discussing the then new PhotoCD format.

    Cheers, Frank.

    At 16:50 30/05/01 -0700, Mark Jordan wrote:
    >I'll ask the naive/uninformed question -- what kind of uses of these files
    >requires that much detail? I understand the need for sufficient resolution
    >to zoom in to see fine details in images, and the need to have more than
    >standard monitor output at 72/96 ppi, particulary for preservation but do
    >people actually scan, and preserve, large numbers of images at these high
    >densities? Isn't 400 or 600 ppi a good tradeoff, especially for
    >text-oriented images.

    Technology Manager News International Product Development mailto:mailto:Frank@news.co.uk mobile +44 (0)7836 293359

    </pre>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 12 2001 - 21:06:34 CDT