[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [APML] Sprintscan 4000 suitability?

To: astro-photo@seds.org
Subject: Re: [APML] Sprintscan 4000 suitability?
From: Matt BenDaniel <matt@starmatt.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:23:58 -0500
References: <001a01c199f1$d777b840$0101010a@main> <3C3DC0FA.9649D767@starmatt.com> <ikqr3uk638f353gpb2ji6fqaso13759grj@4ax.com> <3C3DF0D3.6163A96C@starmatt.com>
Reply-To: astro-photo@seds.org
Sender: owner-astro-photo@seds.org

Matt BenDaniel wrote:
>...Note that a full-frame scan of 35mm at 42-bit depth yields a 35MB file.
> It's nice to have a lot of RAM when processing such files.

Oops.  I meant to say that a full-frame scan of 35mm at 42-bit depth at
4000 DPI yields a 144 MB file, which really requires RAM!

Matt

--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>

References:
- [APML] Sprintscan 4000 suitability?
  - From: "Tim Kearsley" <tim@cirrus.demon.co.uk>
- Re: [APML] Sprintscan 4000 suitability?
  - From: Matt BenDaniel <matt@starmatt.com>
- Re: [APML] Sprintscan 4000 suitability?
  - From: Herm <hermperez@worldnet.att.net>
- Re: [APML] Sprintscan 4000 suitability?
  - From: Matt BenDaniel <matt@starmatt.com>

Prev by Author: Re: [APML] 400F (was: Alternative Anti-Vignetting Photoshop Technique)
Next by Author: Re: [APML] 400F (was: Alternative Anti-Vignetting Photoshop Technique)
Prev by thread: Re: [APML] Sprintscan 4000 suitability?
Next by thread: Re: [APML] Sprintscan 4000 suitability?
Index(es):
- Author
- Thread