[filmscanners] Re: Pixels and Prints

["Berry Ives" <yvesberia@earthlink.net>]

on 10/21/03 2:04 AM, Eugene A La Lancette PhD MD at lalancet@massmed.org
wrote:

> 240 dpi is all that is needed.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of HMSDOC@aol.com
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:07 PM
> To: lalancet@massmed.org
> Subject: [filmscanners] Pixels and Prints
>
> I suspect I will 'go digital' sometime in the next year or two.  My question
> regards what type of print output quality I can expect from digital.
>
> I print on an Epson 2200 at sizes of up to 13x19 inches.  In reality, I tend
> to leave an inch margin or so around the image, so lets say an image size of
> 11x17 inches.  "Conventional" teaching with scans (and I suppose that this
> could be part of the answer..that the conventional holds with scans but not
> direct
> digital acquisition) is that for critical sharpness you should be able to
> send 300ppi to the printer.  Say this is overkill and you really only need
> 250
> ppi.  By my calculations you would still need 11 megapixels fo an 11x17
> image at
> 250ppi.   Yet everyone raves at the output of even the Canon 10D at
> significantly less resolution.  So is the conventional teaching incorrect
> when it comes
> to direct digital capture?  Perhaps more importantly, how many megapixels
> are
> needed for an extremely sharp 11x17 inch print?  I realize there are other
> benefits to digital capture as it translates to printing, such as lack of
> grain,
> but sharpness is quite important to me as well.  I would appreciate any help
> in how to look at this as I think about getting a digital body.  Right now I
> am using a 1V and a Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 Plus.  A DS1 at 14 or so
> megapixels and full frame sensor is way too expensive for me...but if a new
> Canon EOS 3
> type digital body were to come out I could see spending up to $2500 or so.
>
> Howard
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> or body
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
> body

I agree that 240ppi looks pretty darn good.  I can get that scanning a 35mm
neg with the Minolta Scan Dual II.  I've printed 12x18 on 13x19 watercolor
paper and it looks pretty fine.

Berry

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