I find these numbers very hard to believe. 20 x 13.3 is roughly the size of a 24" display; at 1920x1200, that is just under 6000 *individual* rgb pixels horizontally. So, if the numbers are correct, they are saying that when viewing such a screen at 20", the human eye can detect *each* of the rgb pixels??
I've been using Photoshop for editing my photos (shot in RAW) for a few years now, and the greatest obstacle the prevents conversion to Gimp is lack of 16bit support. While 8bit certainly has enough depth for the final output, either for printing or the web, it is woefully insufficient for anything other than the slightest color or contrast manipulations; do a little levels or curves and the shadows get posterized.
Besides that, advanced noise reduction (comparable to Noise Ninja or NeatImage), and sharpening (I currently use PhotoKit Sharpener) would be nice. However, I can live without these, so the deal breaker is 16bit support.
I find it hard to believe that he can get 115 megapixels out of that scanner. Since he is using a 4x5 camera, that works out to a scanner resolution of 2400dpi. That is the kind of resolution of high-end film scanners, not a cheap flatbed (whatever the marketing material says).
Slashdot Mirror
I find these numbers very hard to believe. 20 x 13.3 is roughly the size of a 24" display; at 1920x1200, that is just under 6000 *individual* rgb pixels horizontally. So, if the numbers are correct, they are saying that when viewing such a screen at 20", the human eye can detect *each* of the rgb pixels??
I've been using Photoshop for editing my photos (shot in RAW) for a few years now, and the greatest obstacle the prevents conversion to Gimp is lack of 16bit support. While 8bit certainly has enough depth for the final output, either for printing or the web, it is woefully insufficient for anything other than the slightest color or contrast manipulations; do a little levels or curves and the shadows get posterized.
Besides that, advanced noise reduction (comparable to Noise Ninja or NeatImage), and sharpening (I currently use PhotoKit Sharpener) would be nice. However, I can live without these, so the deal breaker is 16bit support.
lhk
I find it hard to believe that he can get 115 megapixels out of that scanner. Since he is using a 4x5 camera, that works out to a scanner resolution of 2400dpi. That is the kind of resolution of high-end film scanners, not a cheap flatbed (whatever the marketing material says).
lhk