Thanks Jack. Yes, there are variations in framing and the content distorts slightly when you look at the three different scans against each other. This is the result of round-off errors in scaling and resampling the pixel matrix for the different sizings, and differences between the Nikon and V700 capture.
(Discount the tonal rendering differences ... differences there are a result of either being sloppy or not wanting to spend the time to do perfect image correction in this case.) Godfrey ...Nothing is really real in a photograph... On Apr 20, 2007, at 3:22 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > First, and on topic, my impression of the results agrees with you > conclusion. > OT observation: Frame content varies. Maybe I just haven't seen enough > trans scanner comparisons.(?) May be a common phenomenon. > >> http://homepage.mac.com/godders/V700_35test/ >> >> Overall, my conclusions: >> >> - You can make some very high quality scans even of 35mm negatives >> with the V700. >> >> - It's not as convenient to use as the dedicated film scanners, and >> the Nikon is significantly easier to use than the Minolta (as well as >> >> faster). >> >> - The film scanners resolve more than the V700, even with lower >> resolution. They pick up minute scratches and dust particle images >> that are simply too small for the V700 to capture. However, with >> suitable post processing, the results in print look nearly identical. >> >> The last tests I'm doing are for Minox 8x11 subminiature film format >> scanning >> Then I want to get back to doing photography. ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
