I pulled the original images out of my archives, did a little prep work, and
put the results up for review. Here is a summary of what I did and what I
got.
1) Scanned medium format workflow
-->Rolleiflex 3.5E (6x6 medium format)
-->Kodak 400 T400CN
-->Epson 4870 (resolution set to 2400 dpi) :5280 x 5279 image
--> resize down to 660 x 660 for web
http://www.westerickson.net/mark/misc/rolleilibrary.jpg
--> crop at original resolution, then upsize 2x using "nearest
neighbor"
http://www.westerickson.net/mark/misc/rolleilibrary200.jpg
2) Web Gallery: http://www.westerickson/brickwork/
-->Pentax *ist-Ds + 31mm F1.8 Ltd (raw)
--> bring into photoshop with Adobe Camera Raw: 3008 x 2008 image
--> resize down to 1049 x 700 for web
http://www.westerickson.net/mark/misc/dslibrary.jpg
--> crop at original resolution, then upsize 4x using "nearest
neighbor"
http://www.westerickson.net/mark/misc/dslibrary400.jpg
I upsized in Photoshop CS2 using the 'nearest neighbor' algorithm to
simulate what happens when most image editing software 'pixel peeps' at more
than 100% size. Note that the images were taken on different days under
different lighting conditions (overcast vs open shade), so the contrast is a
little bit different. It's not a perfect controlled test, but I do think
that it shows that a 50 year old camera and a $400 scanner can provide more
resolution than a 6 megapixel DSLR and a really good lens.
Comments? Questions?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
