 | | Scans uploaded, critique wanted —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | Woohoo! First to Post! ;) I just uploaded some items to brickshelf.com, and I wanted to know what people thought of my scanning technique. The four most recent additions are mine. The three sets were scanned in at either 75(most likely) or 100 dpi, (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Scans uploaded, critique wanted —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | They look great except for (URL) is not oriented in the proper direction. That makes is very difficult to read on the screen. KL (...) (25 years ago, 1-Sep-99, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Scans uploaded, critique wanted —Mike Faunce
|
| | | | Kevin, Have you ever thought about just rotating the scans you have? I use a Windows shareware program called Firehand Ember that allows you to rotate an image (GIF, JPG, BMP and others)with no noticeable image quality loss (amount other things). It (...) (25 years ago, 21-Oct-99, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Scans uploaded, critique wanted —Kevin Loch
|
| | | | That sounds like a good idea BUT, When you start with a JPEG, do something (even lossless rotation), and recompress as JPEG you exaggerate the JPEG artifacts. This is why it's important for the original scanner to rotate/crop/size the images BEFORE (...) (25 years ago, 22-Oct-99, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Scans uploaded, critique wanted —Mike Faunce
|
| | | | | See if this makes sense. One of the options in Ember is to set the JPEG compression ratio. If you start with the JPEG image (suppose it's at 70%), then rotate it, then save it with a ratio of 100% (no compression), would that end up with a picture (...) (25 years ago, 22-Oct-99, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Scans uploaded, critique wanted —Johannes Keukelaar
|
| | | | (...) There is a program called jpegtran which will rotate JPEGs by any multiple of 90 degrees without decompressing the file, i.e. just by moving bits around in the jpg file. This means that there is _no_ loss in quality. But (there always is a (...) (25 years ago, 27-Oct-99, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| | | | |
