> > "Icoz, Evrim" wrote: > > > Why do we have 4000dpi scanners then? THere is noticable > difference between > > a scan with 2400 dpi and 4000dpi... Also, do not forget that you have to > > account for all three of R,G and B. > > I have both the Nikon 2700 and 4000 scanners. I do not think there is > "noticeable" difference between the two. Only in very large > prints can you see > noticeable difference. Up to 11x14, there is no difference in my opinion, > unless you examine with a high power magnifying glass. If you > print a 13x19 > print and compare side by side, at normal viewing distance, you can tell a > difference. Ray Amos
Hey Ray, What kind of printer did you use? You're comparing one consumer CCD scanner to another with different claimed resolutions. Take the same film to a digital lab with a good drum scanner and get a scan at the same resolution as the CCD scanner and you'd be amazed at what the CCDs are leaving behind. Take the CCD and drum scanned files and have them output on a lightjet, even at only moderate sizes and the differences will also be very obvious. This is like the people who say that they can't see a difference in image quality between an EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM and an EF 28-70 2.8L when comparing the 4"x6" prints they get from the $3.99 a roll 1 hour photo minilab. If they used transparency film they would see the difference very easily, it's like night and day. One of the best reasons for using good equipment is so that you can make larger prints (IMO, 8x10 is large for 35mm), so that you can see and enjoy the products of your labor. Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
