Winsor wrote:
>It seems to me that the 2700 dpi is the limiting factor. Rather like
>the old joke about the senior citizen stereo sale special. Doesn't
>matter much how good the speakers are if you can't hear them.
No, I don't think so. I've tried scanning a few of my slides on a Polaroid
SS4000, and the amount of extra information seems small. There's more pixels,
but there doesn't seem to be much difference between a 2700ppi scan resampled
to 4000dpi and the 4000dpi image. The Sprintscan can get more shadow
information
out of a slide, but that's dynamic range, which is a different issue. A
very sharp image on the film will give a sharper scan - garbage in garbage
out obviously applies.
I'm not saying that a higher resolution or dynamic range scanner would be
a bad thing. I'm simply saying that the scanner can't fix problems with
the source. If all my photos were equally fuzzy, I wouldn't know what I
was missing. But the ones taken with prime lenses are significantly sharper
(duh on my part).
Rob
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
