My experience with scanned film is limited to frontier style machines, which scan the film and print it on RA4. I did a few scans myself here and there, but really didn't like the process. The results were ok, I just never wanted to deal with the process of scanning.
Anyway, frontier prints are practically indistuishable from "regular" prints, IME. tv > -----Original Message----- > From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > TV, have you compared scanned film to digital? If so, > what's your take on this approach? What size negs have > you scanned, and what size have you printed them at? > > tom wrote: > > > For years, we've been reading posts on this list and > other as to how > > it's mathematically impossible that digital will ever > equal film, or > > this theory proves that digital sucks, or a full frame sensor is > > impossible, or digital might be ok once we have 100 meg > sensors, or > > whatever. It's theoretical bullshit. Unless you've seen > and compared > > prints that you know have been competently made, you're > just talking > > out of your ass. > > >
