This was the explanation I got from the BH salesman in New York.
Emulsion is not necessarily the same as silver grains.. I believe that
the thickness is different for 24x36 wr to 6x6. As to whether this makes
any real difference for a small piece of film scanned I'm not sure - its
was my subjektive evaluation - which could be wrong.
Ronald
Jens Bladt wrote:
I don'tunderstand the thing about thicker or better emulsion. Basicly I
guess it's about the same.
The 6x6 image will have about 4,5 times as much "silver grain" or whatever
defines the image info. So what can be defind by 4,5 pixel in an 6x6 image
must be defined by just one in the 24x36 image. A 6x6 image image does't
demand so much as the scanner as the 24x36 image.
Many scanners are not really good enough for small negs. At least my Epson
Perfection 3200 Photo isn't. This was one of the reasons I switched to
digital - because continuing shooting 35mm negs would mean, that I'd have
invest as much as the cost of the *ist D in a dedicated film scanner. Then
I'd still have to buy film, pay for development etc. So to me, buying the
*ist D was actaully saving a lot of money. I already (2? months) shot
pictures worth (6500 shots) the same money as the *ist D.
I kept my 6x6 equipment, because some jobs (like aerial photography) need
the higher resolution. My scans from 6x6 negs look great, but the 35mm scans
can't really compete with my *ist D - neither in regard to quality nor cost.
I know 35mm negs have theoreticly better resolution than the *ist D, but my
scanner couldn't cope.
All the best
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Ronald Arvidsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 18. november 2004 19:35
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: MB /frame size
Actually, I find that I get more detail (subjectively) from a 6x6 scan
and discussed this with some people at a camerashop. they told me that I
probably was right since they though that the quality of the 6x6 film
also is bettter. I dont know it this is true - but it could be that the
6x6 has a bit thicker emulsion which "maybe" improves the result. I
havent made any scientific check on resoultion though but I'm sure it
easier for me to get god scans from 6x6 than 24x36. I use an Epson 2400
scanner by the way - not top of the professional but still giving me
very god 6x6 scans with a lot of detail in them.
Cheers,
Ronald
Jack Davis wrote:
Thanks, Ron,
Realizing that the 6x6 records more detail, it at long
last, occurred to me that I might be limiting it's
recovery by using a single scan level for both
formats.
My excuse is that I was thinking (?) in terms of
square inches rather that frame size.
Jack
--- Ronald Arvidsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You will have more detail in the 6x6 since there is
more detail in the
6x6 negative than the 24x36. Its two equations
basically
resiloution6x6*resolution-scanner=scanned image6x6
resolution24-36*resolution scanner= scanned
image24x36
However, you are right in the sense that you can get
out more of the 6x6
if the scanner has the resoution allowing it. Still
I think if the
scanner is of high enough quality 100MB would
suffice.
Cheers,
Ronald
Jack Davis wrote:
If a 6x6cm frame is scanned at 100MB and a 35mm
frame
is scanned at 100MB, will the 35mm frame relinquish
a
greater share of its information than will the 6x6?
IOW, in order to achieve an equal scan saturation,
would it be necessary to scan the 6x6 at 360MB?
(6x6
area =3.6 times that of the 35)
Guess I don't have enough to do:)
Jack
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
