----- Original Message ----- From: "steve harley" Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner
> >> Combine this with the fact that most prints aren't taken with the best >> cameras, the best lenses, or the finest grained film, and there really >> isn't any advantage to a flatbed scanner over a modern 14mp or greater >> DSLR in terms of image quality when copying prints. > > i have some experience with digitizing prints with both scanners and with > digital cameras; we did about 2200 of them a few years ago; using a so-so > 4MP camera on a copy stand was definitely faster, and probably captured > 90% of what was in the print; a decent scanner did a better job with the > dynamic range, and delivered a much flatter field with no distortion; > however prints on the scanner were harder to square up (many prints > weren't square on the paper), and it took about 3x as long in production > mode to scan vs. snap; which is all to say there are trade-offs, > particularly if you don't have an appropriate lens on the camera > I expect your results would have been better with a more modern camera and good quality macro lens. This thread devolved rapidly unfortunately. I've seen thousands of drugstore prints from the 1930s, 40s and 50s, which is the topic of discussion, and they very rarely rose above the level of mediocre quality. In this situation, the scanner isn't going to give a better job than a camera, or if it does, it's going to be marginal. The time factor just isn't worth it compared to being able to slap them past a copystand mounted DSLR for what will be no practical gain in quality. Been there, done it myself. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
