]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 6:36 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a
limiting factor in sharpness?
Dave wrote:
A Polaroid SS4000, courtesy of the recent great price.
Before that an LS-30 and both using VueScan.
Thanks, Dave
I
wonder if this is due to some sort of stacking effect (Austin?),
You're over the extent of my knowledge here, but thanks for the thought ;-)
Dave wrote:
is simply more grain in some areas of the negative than others. I
wonder if this is due to some sort of stacking effect (Austin?),
whereby areas with dyes closer to the color of the base appear
grainier.
Tony - are you around? Tony mentioned something about different grain being
per second and capture a steady image.
Just another idea.
Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction
-Original Message-
From: Rob Geraghty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 8:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi
: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting
factor in sharpness?
| Hi Rob! Again, I envy your opportunities for combining excitement and
| photography!
| I have another idea to help with camera shake. I was talking to an aerial
| photographer at a trade show recently and he told me about a gyroscopic
John wrote:
Don't think that these $800-3000 scanner toys we are using
are the best it will get or the best that is out there.
I have a Nikon LS30. It's technology which is what, four years old? There's
much better scanners on the market now if one has the money. I don't.
Having said that,
Dave wrote:
A Polaroid SS4000, courtesy of the recent great price.
Before that an LS-30 and both using VueScan.
Thanks, Dave. The other thing I meant to ask was what 800 speed film?
Is it Fuji Superia 800 print film?
Rob
PS Tony Sleep has mentioned in the past that he often uses his SS4000
Rob Geraghty wrote
John wrote:
snip
If you have an image that is that good get a drum scan
from Nancy Scans (11,000 dpi?) or somewhere.
I suspect the cost of sending the film from Austraila to the States and
returning the result on a CDR (if indeed an 11K scan would fit) would be
Roger wrote:
It sounds like you want to know how much money you
should spend on lenses (and maybe what brand) in
order to get decent scans.
Better scans, yes. The scans I get now are decent enough for me, but
they could be better. All these terms are relative. :)
The best 35mm lens will
Austin wrote:
What are you using for lenses? Hopefully primes? Yes, the lense
does have a LOT to do with it, as I found out going from Nikon
primes to Leica/Contax primes...
Nothing in the same league. If I was using Leica/Contax primes,
I'd probably need 4000ppi to get the best scans -
Austin wrote:
What are you using for lenses? Hopefully primes? Yes, the lense
does have a LOT to do with it, as I found out going from Nikon
primes to Leica/Contax primes...
Nothing in the same league. If I was using Leica/Contax primes,
I'd probably need 4000ppi to get the best
Austin wrote:
Ah, yes. Seriously, DO chase a better lense! The Contax 50/1.4 is a
cheapie and any of the Contax lenses are in the same league as Leica glass.
It's Zeiss glass...and they are superb performers, most any of them, and
about 1/3rd to 1/4th the price of Leica glass.
I'd love to, but
From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Obscanning: Has anyone else noticed the difference in sharpness
between
their lenses when scanning films?
Rob
Not particularly, but nearly all of my Nikkors are at least pretty
good, and some of them are excellent. The softest 35mm lens I own is
a Sigma
--- Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In an
ideal
world I might go for Contax or Leica, but I have very limited funds,
so
the best choice seems to be get a good lens for the gear I already
have.
You don't need Leica and Contax lenses to see a difference. Most better
brands have good
14 matches
Mail list logo
