Thanks for all the comments. I've spent a bit of time running more scans and now I'm figuring out what's what for 35mm and subminiature formats, but I thought I'd respond to a couple of these notes.
>> http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/19b.htm >> http://homepage.mac.com/godders/V700rez-detail-snips.jpg > From: Brendan MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The res is definitely better at the 6400 dpi > resolution. But the file sizes are getting big. > > My question is, are you pulling out the grain, as > well? One of the things I've noticed when scanning > black and white is that going full tilt boogie for > resolution ends up giving me detail but with grain. > This is with the Coolscan 9000 ED. So, I generally > won't go more than 2000 ppi when scanning tri-x or > plus-x negs (the guy who runs the local lab in town > doesn't scan b/w at more than 1000 ppi, or so he tells > me, and he has the same setup as me). I haven't had > the oppurtunity to scan other kinds of b/w neg yet. > However, I will be trying some Fuji neopan 120 > sometime in the near future. There are tradeoffs. Sometimes you want to image the grain for effect and then you have to deal with minor scratching and other blemishes as well. Sometimes, you drop the scan rez or knock the focus off a little bit so you can apply good sharpening techniques and end up with something that looks identical but isn't full of grain noise. More on this when I get to the 35mm/Minox scans. From the point of view of scanning resolution, 3200 is certainly enough to get a very high quality print larger than anything I normally make out of 645 format film (output resolution without scaling is 360 ppi for a print area larger than 13x19 inch). 6400 ppi is a huge amount of data overhead, it buys some other possibilities, but I don't know that it's actually worth the effort and disk space. From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Anxious to see the 35mm scan comparisons. Put them up against a 100 > ISO > K10D image having received one click of "Auto Sharpen". Why? I'm not doing this for a "film vs digital" thesis. I'm doing this to characterize what the scanners I have at my disposal do so I can use them with film images I have already or will make in the future. I already know what kind of quality I can get out of the K10D. From: Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Can't say without seeing "actual pixels" but the scanner certainly > sounds impressive. I may look at getting one to replace my aging > Epson 3200. It is definitely a major step beyond the capabilities of the Epson 2450/3200 generation scanners. > One comment - do you need to scan at 6400 ppi? there are two ways of > looking at a larger film format - one is that you can make humongous > prints that look as good as moderate sized prints made from 35mm film. > The other is that you can make moderate size prints that look much > better than prints the same size made from 35mm film because they are > enlarged less - less grain, etc. > > So - looking at the quality of a 6400 dpi scan is one measure, but > looking at an 11 x 14 print from the 645 (which may be scanned at a > much > lower resolution) is another. As mentioned above, I doubt I need better than 3200 ppi scanning resolution for 645 work. I haven't done print testing yet, but I think the A3 print I made of the truck image (URL at top) proves to me that it is more than up to the task at that resolution. I'm simply exploring the capabilities ... ;-) Next installment: 35mm. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
