<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"><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>2012-02-13T08:36:22.58346Z</updated><entry><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/2010/09/25/oauth#comment0001</id><published>2004-11-23T18:24:34Z</published><updated>2004-11-23T18:24:34Z</updated><author><name>Danny</name><foaf:mbox_sha1sum>da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709</foaf:mbox_sha1sum></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><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/2010/09/25/oauth#comment0002</id><published>2004-11-23T18:34:36Z</published><updated>2004-11-23T18:34:36Z</updated><author><name>Norman Walsh</name><foaf:mbox_sha1sum>da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709</foaf:mbox_sha1sum></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><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/2010/09/25/oauth#comment0003</id><published>2004-12-07T13:55:12Z</published><updated>2004-12-07T13:55:12Z</updated><author><name>Jirka Kosek</name><foaf:mbox_sha1sum>da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709</foaf:mbox_sha1sum></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><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/2010/09/25/oauth#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>da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709</foaf:mbox_sha1sum></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>

