Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.

[TonySleep@halftone.co.uk (Tony Sleep)]

On Thu, 24 May 2001 19:08:51 -0400  Ray Amos (hamos@triad.rr.com) wrote:

>  In my opinion, Nikon has
> really improved the digital ice feature.  I cannot tell any difference
> in sharpness "using" and "not using" digital ice cubed even when zoomed
> side-by-side until you could see the pixels.

If it is now that good, it will be something of a killer feature. Spotting 
is *the* major time-eater here, even with pristine film.
 
> BTW, 14-bit color will blow your socks off!  Personally, I use 14-bit
> scans when "Color is an important ingredient in the overall image".  The
> down side is the size doubles.  PS converts it from 14-bits to 16-bits. 
> My scans are a little over 100 MB and if you try to compress them using
> Photoshop's LZW compression, the size actually increases.  Instead of a
> 30 MB compressed file you end up with a 110 MB non-compressed file.

I invariably use this route with the Polaroid, results are much better 
than scanning to 8 bits.


Regards 

Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner 
info & comparisons