A good drum scanner may be slightly better, but in this case its the film resolution that is the limiting factor.
Ashley 1/2/03 4:15 pmTREVITHO(AT)aol.com > > In a message dated 2/1/03 5:04:36 AM, schewe writes: > > << > > Side by side, exact same lens & crop. Digital processed through an un-named > > beta of a soon to be announced raw image conversion (in 6 seconds from > > preview on a 1gig Ti Laptop using OS X) and up-rezed in stages to the same > > size as the 35mm chrome scanned on an Imacon 848 at 6700ppi. (film was EPP) > > > Result? Film sucks. . .badly! >> > > Dear Jeff > > Does this imply that the Imacon scanner is the very best for scanning film? I > have always thought that the drum scanners at ten times the price produced a > better scan. Richard Kenward has just sold his Imacon in favour of two > unnamed drum scanners. He must be seeing a difference. > > Bob Croxford =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
