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: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality (Epson 2450)



Dare I say it, but the mistake here might be the belief that a 4000dpi
scanner is actually capable of 4000dpi scans (or "samples per inch", if we
want to reduce confusion).

Anyone got any hard evidence of the *actual* resolving power of these
scanners?

Jawed

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
> Sent: 07 December 2001 17:09
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality
> (Epson 2450)
>
>
>
> Hi Bernhard,
>
> I believe I've heard that some Nikons can have focusing problems.
>
> Just as an FYI, you CAN get an equally as "detailed" scan out of a 2700DPI
> scanner as with a 4000DPI scanner, depending on where things "line up".
> Digital acquisition devices capture UP TO (be careful how you read this,
> it's tricky) between a little more than 1/2 the resolution of the
> device...up to the resolution of the device.  If you need me to
> 'spalin that
> one more, I can...I know it's not necessarily easy to understand.
> Basically, if the detail lines up perfectly with the grid of the sensor,
> you'll get it at the resolution of the scanner, but if it falls
> "off grid",
> contrast will be lowered...  Basically, it's a "Nyquist" issue...
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
> > Austin,
> > The image shows a grave at the cemetery with lots of fallen leafs
> > and trees,
> > an almost incredible amount of finest detail, shot with an efke
> 25 b&w neg
> > film and a Konica Hexar with very sharp lens at f8 - I was
> > surprised myself,
> > but I conclude that a) the guy doesnt know how to use his
> > scanner (would be
> > strange) b) the Nikon doesnt give consistently sharp results or c) the
> > extra 1100dpi is not as essential as some may make us believe.
> > I think its a mixture of b) and c)
> >
> > Greetings bernhard
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
> > To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 3:08 PM
> > Subject: RE: filmscanners: 35mm film versus medium-format scan quality
> > (Epson 2450)
> >
> >
> > > > Concerning 35mm - I have been able to print very good/ sharp
> > > > looking prints
> > > > at 11x14 with a 2.900dpi Nikon scan. Someone scanned one of the negs
> > with
> > > > his Nikon 4000 - ...but overall quality of the print was *not*
> > > > better, no more visible detail.
> > >
> > > Bernhard,
> > >
> > > Might that have been because there was no more detail on the
> image to be
> > > had?  Have you seen a chemical print of the same image that
> showed more
> > > detail?
> > >
> >
> >
>
>




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.