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: Rescans and archiving



I have a question for the group.

  I recently upgraded from a original  Photosmart scanner for 35mm film to a
Nikon LS-IV scanner.  I recently scanned about 100-200 images from a trip
and then changed scanners and monitors.  The Photosmart was  2400DPI scanner
and teh Nikon was a 2900DPI scanner.
  This past weekend I opened up some of the old scanned images and was
looking at them and noticed that there is a big difference in the scans
compared to new scans I have done with the Nikon scanner.

Question is.. IT is worth my time to rescan all those images again....
It will take some time to do since I will have to fish them out again.

Secondly,  I have been burning my finished scans onto Verbatim CD-R discs.
But I have read and been recommended  recently that the Kodak Ultima CD-R 80
are better for long term storage.  Does anyone have a opinion on this?


Thanks

Eric
======================


>
> > 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?
>
> Objectively measured? No. AIUI it's pretty hard (ie expensive) to achieve,
> as conventional test target images don't work properly with digital
> systems. In any case, I am more interested in real-life use :)
>
> Empirically, yes - I have scanned several ISO100 originals on both
> 2,700ppi and 4,000 ppi scanners. There is a difference, which is somewhat
> analogous to that between fast and fine-grain film but without the grain!
> At the same time it's obvious but subtle. The 4000ppi scans show better
> tonal smoothness and inner detail, though only look marginally sharper.
>
> Printed on the same Epson 1200, both are perfectly acceptable, especially
> in terms of sharpness, but the 4000 scan looks somehow smoother and
> clearer, whilst the 2700 appears almost slightly smeared or veiled. But
> you'd only really notice this in a side-by-side comparison. After carrying
> out this test, I concluded I wouldn't be bothering to rescan all the stuff
> I had done at 2700, apart from a few originals which had produced massive
> grain aliasing problems. 4000ppi is very much less sensitive to that.
>
> I suspect the Nikon mentioned was having a bad focus day.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Sleep
> http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
> info & comparisons
>




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.