Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?

["Tom Scales" <tscales@attglobal.net>]

OK, I'm going to jump in now.  Better late than......

I am a neaderthal that shoots with Olympus OM equipment.  It may be old but
the lens are excellent.  I've owned a number of scanners, from an old
Minolta QS-35 to an Acer Scanwit to a Polaroid SS4000 to my current Nikon
LS-4000.

Using my Epson 1270, 4000dpi is easily enough to print an outstanding 13x19
print. Do it all the time.  On good premium glossy, without a loupe, and at
a reasonable viewing distance, I would bet that most viewers would never
know it wasn't a 'real' print. Certainly no one that has seen them
immediately knows, even the photographers.

As for lenses, clearly the quality of the lens makes a difference in the
scan and the ultimate print.  I can shoot the same thing with a poor quality
third-party lens that I shoot with my Olympus 90/2 macro and I can see the
difference in a drugstore print, let alone a scan.  Once you get to 'good'
lenses, though, the difference is small.  A decent Tamron or Tokina 90/2.5
is not, to my eye, dramatically different from the Olympus lens.

I'm going to look at this from a completely different perspective in the
next few days.  I just bought, literally last night, an Olympus E-20N
digital camera. 5 megapixels.  Should be interesting to see the results
printed.

Tom

From: "Arthur Entlich"

> If he answers an $50 scanner, I think we've caught him ;-)
>
> Now, if they can just get those ultra wide carriage Epson printers down
> to around $150....
>
> Art
>
> Rob Geraghty wrote:
>
> > Dave wrote:
> >
> >>I love making 24x36" prints on an Epson 7000 from 800 speed color negs
> >>shot with a $90 point and shoot.  Why?  Because they look great.
> >>
> >
> > What are you scanning the 800 speed film with, Dave?
> >
> > Rob
> >