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: Rescans and archiving



Whether it is worth your time or not is up to you - probably not, I would say, 
because you may well move up to a 4000spi scanner some day and then you will 
want to rescan again.  Rescan only as needed IMHO.

For optimal archival longevity the Kodak Ultima would be better, but to save 
money and time you can keep the Verbatims, just check them once a year or so to 
make sure they are OK.  You are, of course, better off making and keeping 
duplicates of all the disks, so that may be the way to go - make the duplicates 
on the Kodaks.

Maris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric" <biology@ucla.edu>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:57 AM
Subject: 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.