[filmscanners] RE: Canon IDs vs Pentax 67II

["Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>]

Hi David,

> 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.

You're welcome.

> 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
> see.
>
> If I crop so that the resultant file prints at 450 dpi, I do like what I
> see.

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
> overkill.

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
file...

I do agree that the digital camera images are absolutely fantastic, it all
depends on how much you enlarge them ;-)

Regards,

Austin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body