Maybe the subject line of my previous Thread "Could deletions be more specific" was confusing. So far no one has given a reason for why this scan was deleted and I'm beginning to make me believe the deletion was a mistake or inappropriate. I presented the images side-by-side, and perhaps that was enough reason to retract their objection and they just don't want to state that they retract their object because they can't undo the deletion but can simply sit by until I figure out that I should re-upload it and they'll let it be.
I don't wish to repeat everything I wrote in the first note, as it's there for reference, but suffice it to
say, what I posted was not enlarged after it was scanned in. I have a larger source than was used for all of the older
scans in this series. They used 600dpi for their scan on smaller sources and thus have lower resolution. The source
appears to be 300dpi. So scanning it in over that is unnecessary -- except to get higher scan dimensions.
I submitted one scan at 300 dpi that was a better image than the original in the library (another picture), and it was deleted because it's dimensions were smaller than the older copy's. The older copy was from a source 60% the height and width of my source, making it 36% the size of my source (.6x.6=.36). But because they used 600 dpi, they had higher numbers -- The 300dpi target I originally used was optimal, because it doesn't overscan the source at all and didn't result in any visible pixelization. But at 600, you pick up each print pixel -- this cannot be easily removed if at all (hand recoloring anyone?) without causing some noticeable blurring and problems -- which is what the original submitter had -- noticeable visible pixelization AND noticeably more blurry -- indicating they'd tried to smooth the image due to the over scanning. At 300 dpi you didn't get pixelization, yet still got an image ~3366 (cf the older was about 4000) pixels tall that appeared sharper when viewed side-by-side at any size.
Nevertheless, it got deleted on lower integer dimensions. So I used my scanner to use 400dpi -- still less pixelization than at 600, but giving a picture ~4466 pixels height, which met some deleter's, bean count. (Note I did explain what I am explaining here in the note, but apparently not well enough). I suggested that they look at the two images at the same size (not same zoom) side by side (like I did on the previous note I posted). When doing that, it's clear what the improvements are, more clear than the pics I posted in the previously mentioned post (the pixelization was noticeably worse).
So I know I'd *like* to post the pics at 300dpi -- that would give full quality and wouldn't requrring anyone blurring the pic to try to get rid of the pixel effect. But if the numbers are needed, I can do 400 dpi, but it's more work on my part, as I don't like submitting heavily visibly pixelated scans, but I also don't want to try to adjust them, but the fact is that they older ones are overscanned by 200%. This creates a larger number, but a poor scan.
Can I get admins educated about the actual quality of the scan rather than the dimensions? I know it is a harder and more subjective metric to use, which is why I suggested the ideal of quarantining scans to let multiple admins review it and/or allowing questions to be asked of the scanner....?
Am I being overly assertive? *blush*....well, I'm not meaning anything I've said in any mean way...honest, so please don't take it that way!
Could it be allowed for a lower dimension scan to replace a higher dimension if the new source is bigger, thus allowing a lower scan dimension that gives a better looking scan.
Thanks for your time and reading...
A*a