Follow this link for an explanation of
these three images. All the images were scaled to 500 pixels
vertically, 72 dpi. No color correction was applied to any of the
images. The ladder is purple, not red.
The first image is from the Canon S100 digital camera. (69616 bytes).
Starting image size 2020 KB. The color of the ladder is not correct,
the two images from film are much more accurate. The pixels seem to
have a different height than width. The shot is slightly distorted. As
a result the same magnification could not quite be achieved for the
film shots. This is typical of at least the lower tier of digital
Below is the second image from film, scanned by Wolf Camera on a Kodak
PhotoCD (60253 bytes). The starting image size 760 KB. A 1488 x 992
at 72 dpi image compressed to fit into a file of less than a megabyte
is not of high enough quality for anything other than casual WEB
images. The Kodak scanner is more contrasty than the CanoScan. We
conclude that these PhotoCDs are not useful in our environment. The
quality is just not good enough.
The third, below, is again from film, scanned at maximum resolution by
the CanoScan FS2710. (62617 bytes) Original file size 27,500 KB, 3888
x 2720 pixels at 2720 dpi, 8-bits per pixel then downsized to 500
pixels vertical for the WEB image. The original image can be blown up
to 11 x 14 in. Although a 4000 dpi scanner would be nice, the
increase in quality is beginning to compete with the other limitations
of the entire process such as focus, camera shake, lens quality, and
printer limitations. This is the least contrasty of the images - a
characteristic of the CanoScan.
The compressed JPEG image is 63K vs 60K for the PhotoCD indicating
more detail in the image. This is visible even in the downsized WEB
The color is accurate, although we have seen bad color from the local
mini-labs. Obviously they are not rigorous on maintaining the quality
of their chemicals.
Last modified: Wed, 07-Nov-01 08:03:21 PST