<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8' standalone='yes'?>
<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='/style/atom-comments.xsl'?>
<feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'>
<title>norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2004/11/23/kodachrome</title>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://norman.walsh.name/2004/11/23/kodachrome'/>
<id>http://norman.walsh.name/2004/11/23/kodachrome/comments.atom</id>
<updated>2005-01-17T03:11:53Z</updated>

<entry xmlns:foaf='http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/'>
<title>Comment 1 on /2004/11/23/kodachrome</title>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://norman.walsh.name/2004/11/23/kodachrome#comment0001'/>
<id>http://norman.walsh.name/2004/11/23/kodachrome#comment0001</id>
<published>2004-11-23T18:24:34Z</published>
<updated>2004-11-23T18:24:34Z</updated>
<author>
  <name>Danny</name>
  <foaf:mbox_sha1sum>669fe353dbef63d12ba11f69ace8acbec1ac8b17</foaf:mbox_sha1sum>
  <uri>http://dannyayers.com/</uri>
</author>
<content type='xhtml'><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>Great stuff, we have anxious walls too, this should help. 

The first photo of your Dad has a remarkable quality, a little unnerving even: 1951? It looks like it was taken ten minutes ago.</p></div></content>
</entry>

<entry xmlns:foaf='http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/'>
<title>Comment 2 on /2004/11/23/kodachrome</title>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://norman.walsh.name/2004/11/23/kodachrome#comment0002'/>
<id>http://norman.walsh.name/2004/11/23/kodachrome#comment0002</id>
<published>2004-11-23T18:34:36Z</published>
<updated>2004-11-23T18:34:36Z</updated>
<author>
  <name>Norman Walsh</name>
  <foaf:mbox_sha1sum>9f5c771a25733700b2f96af4f8e6f35c9b0ad327</foaf:mbox_sha1sum>
  <uri>http://norman.walsh.name/</uri>
</author>
<content type='xhtml'><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>That film stuff is durable. And the resolution is spectacular. I think the focus is actually a little soft on his face, but I haven't tried examing the slide with a loupe to see if it's an artifact of the film or the scanning.

</p><p>I wish I knew more about when and where it was taken.</p></div></content>
</entry>

<entry xmlns:foaf='http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/'>
<title>Comment 3 on /2004/11/23/kodachrome</title>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://norman.walsh.name/2004/11/23/kodachrome#comment0003'/>
<id>http://norman.walsh.name/2004/11/23/kodachrome#comment0003</id>
<published>2004-12-07T13:55:12Z</published>
<updated>2004-12-07T13:55:12Z</updated>
<author>
  <name>Jirka Kosek</name>
  <foaf:mbox_sha1sum>a127c52a9381790d9bed58840c8508308ba33c22</foaf:mbox_sha1sum>
  <uri>http://www.docbook.cz</uri>
</author>
<content type='xhtml'><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>I have excatly same film scanner. What a coincidence ;-)</p>

<p>Sometimes autofocus is wrong and I must rescan slide or do a manual correction of focus. Automatic mode is often quite good but if you want perfect scan you must fiddle with each slide or film strip for a very long time trying different color corrections, focuses, ... Something what one doesn't want to do if he wants to scan several thousands of old pictures :-(
</p></div></content>
</entry>

<entry xmlns:foaf='http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/'>
<title>Comment 4 on /2004/11/23/kodachrome</title>
<link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://norman.walsh.name/2004/11/23/kodachrome#comment0004'/>
<id>http://norman.walsh.name/2004/11/23/kodachrome#comment0004</id>
<published>2005-01-17T03:11:52Z</published>
<updated>2005-01-17T03:11:52Z</updated>
<author>
  <name>Ian E. Gorman</name>
  <foaf:mbox_sha1sum>18d3f6eeacafb00d27276919f595d78b6b5c73ce</foaf:mbox_sha1sum>
  <uri>gorman.ca</uri>
</author>
<content type='xhtml'><div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>2900 dpi for film is adequate for many purposes.  A 10X print (10 x 15) from a 35mm slide would be close to 300 dpi.  At a ten inch viewing distance, 200 dpi just about reaches the limit of the human eye.</p></div></content>
</entry>

</feed>
