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]

Re: filmscanners: BWP seeks scanner

At 03:10 PM 6/15/01 -0000, Lynn Allen wrote:
>Rafe wrote:
>>In a nutshell -- I don't really see a significant
>>increase in sharpness going from 2700 dpi to 4000
>>dpi.  And this is with slow (ISO 100) negative
>>films like Reala, Supra, etc, using decent optics
>>and with the camera on a tripod.
>Rafe, when you say "Sharpness," are you refering to screen-image sharpness 
>or hard-copy (print) sharpness? The only reason I mention it is that there 
>seems to be subtle differences in what a photographer calls sharpness and 
>how the word is used in the digital imaging world.

I'm not entirely sure what I mean. <g>
Let's see.  "Sharpness," I think, correlates to 
visible, distinguishable detail which is not 

>FWIW, I've seen incredible differences in image sharpness (i.e. 
>screen-image) with 1200dpi flatbed scans--depending on processing, 
>print-paper and format size, but *mostly* from the very obvious differences 
>in camera lenses--Canons and Minoltas unquestionably outperform Kodaks! ;-)

I'm not considering flatbed scans here because there's 
another whole generation of optics involved, over which 
I have no control.


>I think you were probably saying this same thing thing in a different way, 
>but wanted to be sure we're "all on the same page" before I go on...and on, 
>since the original topic was about "Grain." I've seen what a "decent" 
>2700ppi Acer Scanwit can/will do to/with an under-exposed frame on "pushed" 
>Kodacolor: the grain is remarkable, to say the least. Not particularly 
>lovable, but remarkable. :-)

I was struck by the difference in grain between a Wal-Mart 
grade 200 ISO film (Kodak Gold Max 200) and a semi-pro film 
like Reala or Supra, at 100 ISO.  And this was apparent even 
with a cheap, long-obsolete 1950 dpi scanner (Microtek 35t+).

Switching to Reala/RG 100/Supra has had at least as 
significant effect on the quality of my images as did the 
upgrade in film scanner from the Microtek to the SprintScan Plus.

The two film scanners I've owned since then both offered higher 
resolution (first 2700, now 4000 dpi) but I know that the 
sharpness of my prints did not increase in proportion to those 

Like I say, there could be any number of limiting factors, 
either in my photo equipment or technique.

rafe b.


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.