Filmscanners mailing list archive (firstname.lastname@example.org)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[filmscanners] RE: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II
> I haven't tried the Portra films yet, but Reala's clearly worse
> than Provia
> for grain noise
That is going to be scanner dependant. On my scanner, that does not appear
to be an issue, but yes, I have heard/seen grain noise from other people.
It appears that most 2700SPI scanners accentuate grain in those films.
> Thanks for the recommendation.
> I have two
> rolls of Konica Impressa 50 sitting here: are they worth shooting???
I have no idea!
> I'm scanning at full native resolution.
> If I crop so that the resultant file prints at 300 dpi, I don't
> like what I
> If I crop so that the resultant file prints at 450 dpi, I do like what I
What do you mean by "crop"? Don't let the image get resampled! Send what
ever PPI to the printer the changing of the dimensions gives you...
> What I'm doing is changing the magnification by cropping and then printing
> to A4 to determine how large a print I could make when I get around to
> acquiring a 2200 or give the files to a lab.
OK, interesting technique. Off the top of my head, I don't see anything
wrong with that...but let me think about it.
> A 5080 spi scanner would be nice. A 2540 dpi scan of 645 would be
> 240 dpi at
> 13x19. I'd think that'd be a tad soft...
You made some kind of arithmetic error. 2.25 x 1.75 is 645. At 2540, that
would be 5715 x 4445, and with the long side at 19" that's 300PPI, and with
the short side at 13" that's 341PPI.
> Yes, that's how I normally print. But it seems to me that 726 dpi is a tad
Yes, but it doesn't matter...more does not degrade the imgae, only less.
> So the question is: assuming I downsample, how far can I
> downsample before I notice print quality degradation. The answer to that
> question is 250 dpi.
Not for me...I can see differences up to 720, but the loss, IMO, is quite
insignificant over about 460.
> Remember, I have scanning backs and Bayer pattern backs of the same
> resolution. There IS a difference in image quality, no doubt about it!
> Hmm. The experience here is that Bayer (D60/1Ds) images look very nice at
> "actual pixels" on the screen, and that I'm not doing that well with the
> scanner. And I haven't seen any scans on the net that were any better than
> what I'm getting...
That's a tough thing to test on the web, unless you get a full res TIFF
I do agree that the digital camera images are absolutely fantastic, it all
depends on how much you enlarge them ;-)
Unsubscribe by mail to email@example.com, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or