ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: what defines this quality?



on 6/19/01 5:30 PM, rafeb at rafeb@channel1.com wrote:

> Bottom line is, there's only so far you can go (in terms
> of enlargement) with 35 mm film.  Sure, you can blow it
> up to almost any size you want, but the same image on
> a larger slide/negative will always yield a better print.
> 
> Which is why I'm now screwing around with 645 cameras,
> and the associated bulk and $$$ involved in all that.

warning: this is a long and slippery slope!

I am now on a 4x5 and starting to think, hm, 8x10 would be nice.
-- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.