Danbooru-based image board with a specialization in high-quality images.
This post has a child post. (post #2652)
calendar happiness kamisaka_haruhi seifuku

Edit | Respond

Just wondering, do you guys want unprocessed ones at 600dpi or processed ones at 300dpi like the ones I posted earlier.
Unprocessed as in png format? I vote for unprocessed, Higher quality for a few MBs more is worth and it just feels better knowing its not processed(jpeg) as jpeg is never the highest quality.
Just an add-on to supporting unprocessed is that it enable us to process it ourselves. Png-Jpeg, But jpeg-png will not have the same quality as a original Png as some colour data when converted to jpeg is already lost and converting it back to png would be without that lost data.

I sincerly hope for unprocessed. Thanks in Advance!
what I mean by processing is cleaning up scans(getting rid of moire and such) and resizing it to make it look "better"
...Looks like I misunderstood. But why does the processed version have 300dpi compared to the unprocessed one with 600?
reducing the dpi helps make the image look a lot cleaner but reduces resolution of the image.
I think I get what you mean, kinda like the difference between a 300dpi and 200dpi scan, Whereby the 200dpi one looks cleaner because it contains less pixels and the 300dpi though having more pixels looks blurry despite the higher resolution. In fit to screen mode they will look equally clean but in close up...there's the difference...But is't the difference between a 600dpi and 300dpi scan ever bigger...O_o Now that's a hard choice..., could you post some links to some samples on Imouto for reference so as to see the extent of their differences. I can't tell why has the 300dpi and which has 600dpi.
600 dpi unprocessed --> http://imouto.org/rrr_16.jpg
600 dpi processed --> http://imouto.org/rrrr_16.jpg

300 dpi unprocessed --> http://imouto.org/rrrrr_16.jpg
300 dpi processed --> http://imouto.org/rr_16.jpg

sorta extreme example of scans I work with..
In reference to the above post, the paper is textured so thats why it looks odd..
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...
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...