Why? Because I'd be interested in seeing YOUR results. ;-) Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
