> > From: "John Celio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > One question people ask is, why get the Nikon when the KM ScanElite 5400 > produces higher resolution scans (5400 ppi vs the Nikon's 4000 ppi) for less > money? Well, as far as I can tell, the higher resolution is primarily > marketing. Yeah, you get more pixels in your image, but I really don't > think there's any benefit to this. I mean, when I scan something at work > with the CoolScan 8000 at the full 4000 ppi resolution, usually film grain > is readily apparent. Scanning at any higher resolution would be a waste of > time at this point, because there's nothing left to resolve. >
One of the things I'm inspecting carefully is colour depth. I've got a slide of a red geranium (on Velvia....) that I cannot get a decent scan of with the Craposcan. It looks indescribably dull and if I try to boost the saturation, the image just goes a sort of wierd fluorescent hue before it gets anywhere near the correct colour. This is going to be my test slide for whatever I get. mike ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
