<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blurry</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/2006/11/blurry/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/2006/11/blurry/</link>
	<description>Sci-fi, comics, humor, photos...it&#039;s all fair game.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:01:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian White</title>
		<link>http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/2006/11/blurry/#comment-13481</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian White</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:30:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hyperborea.org/journal/archives/2006/11/23/blurry/#comment-13481</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m afraid you&#039;ll never get very good results scanning prints.  They have a maximum resolution of about 300dpi (or 1200x1800 for a 4x6 standard print, about 2.2 megapixels).  Their color rendition and contrast is also less than even an 8-bit digital image.

To get quality from film, you need a negative scanner.  I have a Nikon Coolscan IV that will do 2900dpi (or about 4500x3000) at 12 bits (see my &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.backgroundexposure.com/blog/2006/11/my-two-bits/&quot;&gt;RAW vs JPEG&lt;/a&gt; article for why those bits are important).  It&#039;s also RGB at every pixel where digital is only R, G, &lt;i&gt;or&lt;/i&gt; B at every pixel.  Good film still kicks digital for pure quality, though not so much as it once did.

Oh, your dark corners...  That&#039;s vignetting and it happens because the lens (especially a wide angle) gathers less light at the edge of it&#039;s image circle.  The better the lens, the less this will happen.  You get what you pay for.  Zoom in a bit or get a DSLR with a big lens.

Point &amp; Shoot cameras are great for one thing though, and that is that you can &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.backgroundexposure.com/blog/2006/11/the-constant-camera/&quot;&gt;have a camera with you all the time&lt;/a&gt;.

Keep shooting!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m afraid you&#8217;ll never get very good results scanning prints.  They have a maximum resolution of about 300dpi (or 1200&#215;1800 for a 4&#215;6 standard print, about 2.2 megapixels).  Their color rendition and contrast is also less than even an 8-bit digital image.</p>
<p>To get quality from film, you need a negative scanner.  I have a Nikon Coolscan IV that will do 2900dpi (or about 4500&#215;3000) at 12 bits (see my <a href="http://www.backgroundexposure.com/blog/2006/11/my-two-bits/">RAW vs JPEG</a> article for why those bits are important).  It&#8217;s also RGB at every pixel where digital is only R, G, <i>or</i> B at every pixel.  Good film still kicks digital for pure quality, though not so much as it once did.</p>
<p>Oh, your dark corners&#8230;  That&#8217;s vignetting and it happens because the lens (especially a wide angle) gathers less light at the edge of it&#8217;s image circle.  The better the lens, the less this will happen.  You get what you pay for.  Zoom in a bit or get a DSLR with a big lens.</p>
<p>Point &amp; Shoot cameras are great for one thing though, and that is that you can <a href="http://www.backgroundexposure.com/blog/2006/11/the-constant-camera/">have a camera with you all the time</a>.</p>
<p>Keep shooting!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

