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: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?

Hi Rob! Again, I envy your opportunities for combining excitement and
I have another idea to help with camera shake. I was talking to an aerial
photographer at a trade show recently and he told me about a gyroscopic
tripod. Their website is http://www.ken-lab.com/.

He swears by it. Says it will stabilize small, medium and large format
cameras (three different models). He uses the medium format model with his
35 mm camera. He shoots from a Cessna 172 by opening the window at 1000 feet
and about 80 knots. Uses an 80 to 200 mm zoom lens, usually near 200 mm. He
claims that suspending the camera by the tripod is much better than using a
fixed tripod that transmits the vibrations from the airplane to the camera
through the tripod. It uses a waist mounted battery pack to power it.

I'm thinking about getting one to use at weddings. He says you can swing it
at about 10 degrees per second and capture a steady image.

Just another idea.

Jack Phipps
Applied Science Fiction

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Geraghty [mailto:harper@wordweb.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 8:40 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a
limiting factor in sharpness?

Roger wrote:
> It sounds like you want to know how much money you
> should spend on lenses (and maybe what brand) in
> order to get decent scans.

Better scans, yes.  The scans I get now are "decent" enough for me, but
they could be better.  All these terms are relative. :)

> The best 35mm lens will have trouble making a really
> good 11x14.  The print size limit for 35 mm lenses is
> therefore somewhere in that range, i.e., at least 8x10
> but not much over 11x14.

See above about "relative". :)  I believe you absolutely as far as a "really
good" print from the point of view of a Pro photographer.  But for instance
I have a 30"x20" photographic print (as opposed to inkjet) at home which
everyone raves about.  It was printed in 1981 from ordinary Kodak 100ASA
colour negative film, and taken with a Voigtlander 35mm rangefinder camera
dating from about 1950.  But I take your point.

> It's the lens quality of a poor lens that would show up in a scan.

Or other factors like aperture, camera shake etc.

> You don't need to buy a Lieca lens in order to get
> quality.  Check out www.photodo.com for unbiased
> lens test data.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that some Pentax lenses rated very well
on that site.  I thought I might have to change cameras to get a better

> Rob, plan on spending a moderate amount of money on lenses (you
> don't need the most expensive, simply stay away from the cheap
> ones).  Check out www.photodo.com before you buy a given lens.

Makes sense.

> Shoot the lens under optimum conditions.

If only that were always possible! My photos taken from ultralights are
under pretty challenging conditions - no chance of a tripod, vibration and
wind buffeting, hand held... but at least the bright conditions make a high
shutter speed possible! :)  Again, I take your point.

> Don't spend your money on a lens based on the
> brand name.

Good advice - there seems to be a lot of variations in lenses.

> Plan on buying a 4000ppi scanner someday.

By the time I can afford it maybe they'll be 6000ppi. ;)

Thanks for the suggestions.


PS Thanks to others who have responded with their experiences of scanning
and what impact the lens used has had.

Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.