On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:27:40 EDT (BHannaford@aol.com) wrote:
> Whatever the theoretical merits of McNamara's observations, it appears
> to me that they clearly are in agreement with the conclusions by Paul
> and Raphael. BTW, the 2900 ppi Nikon CoolscanIV resolved 53.3 lp/mm
> vs 60 lp/mm for the CoolScan 4000ED; does this imply that it
> "outperformed" the more expensive scanner on a relative basis?
I'm impressed by this too ('magazine prints sense about scanner shock'),
and empirically I'd agree that as far as detail is concerned, ~4,000 is
certainly a point of diminishing returns. Having said that, I have
scans done at 2,700ppi and feel no need to remake them at a higher
res - for many purposes, the loss is inconsequential. An A4 Epson is fine,
and only shows a slight sharpness deficit in a direct side by side
comparison. Little more than between (say) ISO200 and ISO 100.
However the real advantages of higher res may be more subtle. Smoother
tonality and increased freedom from grain aliasing artefacts are more
noticeable.
Regards
Tony Sleep
- Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
info & comparisons
