On 1 November 2010 12:38, Nick David Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > Darren, seriously. Time I have in abundance. ;-) > > Well, I've been looking at more Plustek samples. I have yet to find > any high resolution images from it online, the low-res ones I've found > have looked okay. > > But some of the Plustek scans I've found exhibit the same kind of > digital artifacting that had me so upset at that pro lab a few months > back. So I guess those are out. > > I don't mind the older scanners. But I have to say that I'm leaning > very heavily in favor of just getting an Epson flatbed. In fact I'm > thinking probably the V300. > > I found a fellow on flickr who gives everyone access to his original > files scanned with that scanner. And the 4800dpi scans are impressive > for an $80 device. > > They are a bit soft, but 4800dpi equates to 14x22 inches at 300dpi so > a little softness is to be expected from a 35mm frame. His highlights > are usually blown and exhibit some nasty chromatic aberration, but I > believe that's a fleshware problem rather than anything to do with the > scanner itself. > > Here's a link to the photo I'm referring: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/piscue/5000643879/ > > Thanks for all the thoughts so far.
That guy is getting 29MP images from his 35mm scans; I wonder if he's over sampling... I see what you mean about the CA; maybe you can get rid of it in Photoshop, or maybe you can scan in such a way that doesn't produce the aberrations. --M. -- \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment -- 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.
