Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: film vs digital test

From: "Norm Carver" <nfcarver@iserv.net>

The 220 films, (CN400) and Ektachrome VS 120

Also try Provia 100F. You may find it less grainy than the Ektachrome.

 are scanned on a Minolta
MultiPro (a Nikon 8000 is also available). But here is where I need some
advice. I believe I should scan to end up with the same 300 rez but to what
file size?

Don't think about file size. It's meaningless. Think about pixel counts.

I haven't used the Minolta. What I'd recommend doing is scan both at the max
native resoltion (3200 x 3200) and at the max nominal resolution (4800 x

0. Apply NeatImage to both files.
1. (Optional) Sharpen lightly (try amount: 100%, radius 0.7)
2. Downsample to 2800 dpi (IMHO, scanners don't capture more than 2800 dpi
of _useful_ detail, so you might as well look at smaller sharper images.)

See which you like better. That should be a 5800 x 5800 pixel file file.

3. Crop the better image to 5800 x 3866
4. Upsample the Kodak image to 5800 x 3866.
5. Sharpen both to taste.
6. Compare

7. Post the results.

My bet is that the Kodak dSLR (at ISO 160) will kick the 400CN film's butt,
but that Provia 100F will hold somewhat more detail than the Kodak dSLR. You
might also try doing the same thing with a Nikon 8000 scan.

If I'm wrong, I'll by you a beer next time you're in Tokyo. Heck, I'll by
you a beer next time you're in Tokyo even if I'm right<g>.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.