geass is banned from moe :|

>>719
do you only know how to complain to 4chan?

Give us a moment... trying to restore all the pics...

Most are back from batch import.

...

>>721
makes more fun there

whats the source of this?
the millions of tags suck. :|

and if thats one of your bad vectors, i wanna see ur good ones ^^

There are plenty ones on this board !! :/

source is "Steel Angel Kurumi"
http://anidb.info/perl-bin/animedb.pl?show=anime&aid=88

someone edit the tags as u see fit

whoever tried to tag this: The tag separator is space. If you're going to add a tag with spaces in it, replace them with underscores, elsewise you'll just create separate tags (eg "steel", "angel", and "kurumi" instead of "steel angel kurumi").

wasn't me =p

Retagged to follow the tagging guidelines.

No, it's 32bit, and I wasn't talking about open areas like you have pointed out. I was looking at the outlines (which is were jpeg artifacts show on most images). Also, I've just been and checked on my other monitor and I still see them.

Anyway, I'm sure if someone else takes a look they can confirm what I've said. Since I know now that it's not just my monitor.

could u marke some critical outlines like i did?

if anything.. this is the original one and the 1.11MB is the re-saved one

i've compared both images with FastStone Image Viewer's compare feature, and this image retains more details while the other one shows signs of a re-save

my monitor is a colour calibrated dell 2405

>>356
I could, but there are no 'critical' outlines. All the outlines in both images have artifacts surrounding them. There are just less artifacts in this one. Also, Shadow has just said basically the same thing (thanks for confirming by the way Shadow).

hmmm, i wish i knew the source ....
the minitokyo one is the 1,1mb (since they dont allow pics to be larger than 2mb lol)
im not sure if the animepaper one is 1,1mb only too...
i thought this pic was a resave, too, with some shopped noise+filters or something

no problem SoylentGreen

i appreciate the tendency towards high quality scans, so i'll be hanging around this site more often :)

Those processed versions look terrible, far too aggressive noise reduction. I'm rather have paper texture than so much detail loss.

I always thought the "paper texture effect" was because it was a scan and never as good as the original image...Never knew it was because of textured paper..Anyways this looks hard...so i need time to think about it...Btw is the post section of moe.imouto down? I can't seem to access it with IE or Firefox not even with another com...

Server ran out of hd space, problem solved

Processing for textured paper causes a drastic drop in detail, but for "untextured" (Sorry for my ignorance but I have no idea what its called...) paper is the detail lost as much? can I request a link for a scan with "untextured" paper for reference. I think the 600dpi should stay though because it is easy to resize with a image editing softwares. Actually I think a poll or something would be rather useful in seeking public opinion on this matter. Seeing as how only two of us have replied to this post which is strange... Unless people don't really care about it one way or the other as long as they get their scans...

"regular" scan

600dpi:

http://imouto.org/nd600.jpg (9.8mb)
http://imouto.org/nd600p1.jpg (3.13mb)
http://imouto.org/nd600p2.jpg (7.19mb)
http://imouto.org/nd600p3.jpg (2.66mb)

300dpi:

http://imouto.org/nd300.jpg (1.67mb)
http://imouto.org/nd300p1.jpg (1.00mb)
http://imouto.org/nd300p2.jpg (1.06mb)
http://imouto.org/nd300p3.jpg (1.05mb)

JPEG quality of 8, any higher it would take too long to load.

600dpi and unprocessed, the latest artbook sure is a great Christmas gift for me. Thanks for setting it that way! Sorry for the super late reply, was messing around with photopaper...