R. Jackson wrote:
It depends, really. Like, I was scanning some old Ektachrome 400
today. The images were coming out at at 4374 x 6400 pixels. That's
about 28 megapixels and the scanner still wasn't clearly capturing
the grain structure. Looking at it closely you can see what looks
like
On 08/06/2007 George Harrison wrote:
Thanks for the link below but I am damned if I can see any images at
all !
George Harrison
If you need convincing, download and print at 16x12 some of the
sample
full res images at http://www.steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html
Select the camera
On 09/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm. Interesting and quite contrary to my own experience and others.
6 mp DSLR's could not hold a candle to a properly scanned piece of
35mm
film in terms of image quality, detail, resolution and
enlarge-ability.
:-) I said it was contentious.
In
On 09/06/2007 James L. Sims wrote:
I think that digital imaging definitely has a place in this list,
Tony.
I have confidence in and great respect for the core group of this
list.
Digital imaging, film scanning and digicams are still evolving. Just
some of the issues are RAW file converters,
On 09/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
couldn't figure out how to pop the top off to look for
dust because there were no screws
The rectangular slots in the base provide access to plastic clips which
retain the cover - by the look of it, I haven't tried. They're a fairly
standard form of
On 09/06/2007 R. Jackson wrote:
to fully resolve the grain
structure of film takes WAY more resolution than you need to replace
it as a capture medium.
Yup. At one time I had 4,000 8,000 and 12,000ppi scans of the same bit of
film. 8,000 was clearly better than 4,000 (not hugely, but clearly),
I'm pleased to see the list has come to life again.
I wonder if anyone has been able to get a Nikon LS30 working with NK scan
and Vista.
There are no drivers for the SCSI card.
Has any one found a workaround ?
I've got around it by keeping XP as dual boot, but it would be nice to to
have to.
Contentious is an understatement! I don't think we are is disagreement,
and as I suggested it is all about what precisely you are talking about.
At the 6mp level, I think people were willing to sacrifice image quality
for convenience and speed. You've outlined some of that below. And it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How I wish they could just fit the sensor chip from the Canon 5D (or even
the 1Ds MkII) into the Contax N Digital -- now that would produce be
one h*ll of a camera.
I fully agree and I wish for a long time that Contax makes DSLRs also in the
semi-prof segment.
I still
-Included Message--
Date: 9-Jun-2007 01:06:25 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
(I think the
objective consensus would settle on a 10mp equivalence with
On 09/06/2007 Henk de Jong wrote:
The Canon 5D looks like an interesting camera body and even more now
I have
read that I could (re)use my Contax, Yashica and Tokina lenses.
A friend fitted Leica R lenses to his 1DS-2.
http://www.cameraquest.com/frames/4saleReos.htm
--
Regards
Tony Sleep
On 6/8/07, James L. Sims [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you, Tony, Digital cameras, for all practical purposes, has
surpassed the quality of 35mm format film and I believe that happened
with the arrival of the six megapixel camera, a few years ago,
significant cropping, not withstanding
On 09/06/2007 David wrote:
I wonder if anyone has been able to get a Nikon LS30 working with NK
scan
and Vista.
There are no drivers for the SCSI card.
Has any one found a workaround ?
You won't find any support by Nikon, but I believe Vuescan will happily do
it. Trial version from
On 09/06/2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This conflicts with
claims that it is beneficial to scan at 4000 dpi or higher
resolutions. Am I likely seeing the limitations of the optics of
my scanner rather than of the information capacity of the film?
Anybody know how well the optics of the
14 matches
Mail list logo
