Re: filmscanners: drum scanning services

[TREVITHO@aol.com]

In a message dated 22/5/01 8:01:41 pm, laurie@advancenet.net writes:

<< 

Every drum scanning bureaux here  (central London) seems to think asking for

a file this big is ridiculous. One suggests 80Mb as a maximum another 120Mb.

Why? Nobody can explain to me why I would want a small file and have the

Lambda RIP invent pixels (sorry, interpolate) to make up the 400 dpi output

needed, when I have real pixels readily available on my large format

negative.

I went to the bother of shooting 5x7" precisely because I wanted the

sharpest and purest tones possible to record. Now I'm being shunted

downstream by drum operators.. >>

Dear Laurie

This is a bit like asking advice in a hi fi showroom. How good are your ears 
or in this case eyes? Have you really compared the output from a 480Mb and a 
120Mb file? Could you really see the difference? 

I have seen scan tests done from 6 x 7 inch transparencies which were if 
anything better than the original ektachromes at only 40Mb. USM was applied. 
Gene Fisher did an exhibition in Canada with very good (expensive) 
sponsorship and worked with the highest quality output in California. His 
files were 120Mb if I remember and the prints were big from linhof panoramic 
trannies. The important thing is to match the pixel lines exactly with the 
output with led printers. I have gone just under your print size and the file 
size was only 56Mb so I have a hunch your calculation is out somewhere. 



Bob Croxford
Cornwall
England

www.atmosphere.co.uk