To willperrett: Scanning.......... - The TrekEarth Forums


Go Back   The TrekEarth Forums >


Thread Tools Display Modes

Great emka 2013-07-16 0:12

Hi John, I always admire the tuba players. It must be very hard work to go with it and play. Nice photo so full of people, the players and visitors. I copied the photo, turned left, made bigger and... I saw there a guy in blue
shirt with quite a belly :)).
Fine colours. Nice potrait of the player.

warm regards


Old 07-16-2013, 09:18 AM
tyro's Avatar
tyro tyro is offline
TE Expert
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Scotland, U.K.
Posts: 3,516
Default To willperrett: Scanning..........

Hello Will,

Thank you for your kind remarks about this one!

As you say, I think the quite severe limitations (until very recently) on pixel dimensions and file sizes on TE has probably been quite kind to people who scan old shots - as you say, it is difficult to examine a scanned picture in great detail here when you're looking at a tiny JPEG image.

This one was scanned using a film scanner which Yvonne bought for me over ten years ago. It's a "Jessop's own" scanner called a "Film Scan 35". I've never seen another one. When I got it, it ran on Windows 98 perfectly but, when I progressed later to Windows XP and later to Windows Vista, it wouldn't work so I trawled the internet and managed on each occasion to download new drivers for it, so it still works despite its advanced years! Its maximum scan resolution is 1800 pixels/inch so if you think of a 35mm slide of 36 x 24 mm (or about one by one-and-a-half inches), that will give a maximum size of 2700 x 1800 pixels or 4,860,000 pixels - i.e. 4.86 megapixels - not bad. And it will also save your scan as either a JPEG or a TIFF so I tend to use the latter as it gives more scope for editing as it's not compressed.

In fact, I'm just thinking - if it scans a 24mm dimension of a 35mm slide to 1800 pixels (or thereabouts), that's 1800/24 = 75 pixels/mm. I rather suspect that the resolution of the lens in my old Edixa Prismat (which I still have and which still works!) was probably a good deal less than 75 lines/mm, so not too bad, really.

But, above all, it really is a tribute to just how very good Kodachrome was. Funny, this was Kodachrome 64 which was just a little "warm" and some believed it had a slightly pinkish cast. And many still clung onto the old Kodachrome 25 which, of course, was over a stop slower at 25 ASA (ISO 25). I don't know if you can remember it or not, but before I got my first "real" camera - this little one which I also still have - my Dad used Kodachrome which was rated at 10 ASA (ISO 10) - can you believe it? How would people nowadays ever cope with a camera whose only ISO setting was a measly 10? Unbelievable. But then who nowadays could cope with fetching water, carrying coal and foraging for food each day to keep themselves alive?

Take Care,

Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:32 PM.

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.