which is unnoticeable under most circumstances. When you scan a 35mm negative and
begin to manipulate it digitally you're no longer comparing film and digital you're
digital and digital. But this argument has been aired in this forum before.
At 09:12 PM 2/12/04, you wrote:
Hello Shel,
The technique used was unsharp mask. The reason I mention this is because, no matter the method, the lack of grain seems to be of benefit for those particular processes. As a rule of thumb, I don't sharpen my film scans (of course, I don't really print them beyond 8X10 - and then usually have the lab print from the negatives anyway), but scan them at the highest res of my scanner (2820). Sharpening only comes into play when shrinking an image. I suspect that there are better techniques for sharpening the digital images also. From my experience, it takes a higher res scan of 35mm film to get a pleasing print than it does from a digital image (note: I did not say more detailed - just pleasing).
Nonetheless, I bring this up as the discussion was revolving around how many megapixels it takes to equal 35mm film.
-- Best regards, Bruce
Thursday, February 12, 2004, 10:07:39 AM, you wrote:
SB> Bruce,
SB> While I agree with you to some extent, I must ask what SB> technique you use for sharpening scanned film images. There SB> are numerous sharpening techniques, and some provide better SB> results than others when working with film.
SB> shel
SB> Bruce Dayton wrote: >> >> One interesting thing I've noticed after thousands of scan of 35mm and >> shooting *istD - the digital images seem to handle greater sharpening >> than the film scans. Also they seem to handle enlarging beyond actual >> image size (resizing) better. I suspect this is due to the grain in >> film. Sharpening the grain makes the image a bit noisy looking. >>
I drink to make other people interesting.
-- George Jean Nathan
