[filmscanners] Re: 3 year wait

["Simon Lamb" <simon@sclamb.com>]

Scanning at 8000ppi native is less destructive than resampling in Photoshop,
surely?

Simon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kapetanakis, Constantine" <KAPETAC@polaroid.com>
To: <simon@sclamb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:32 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 3 year wait


> At 4000 dpi you are at the edge of film resolution. You get absolutely
> nothing more by scanning at 8000 dpi for example. If you want to print a
> large image just do the resampling in photoshop instead of burdening your
> scanner. Anything higher than 4000 dpi is just marketing hype.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Hamilton [mailto:jameshamilton777@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 9:06 AM
> To: KAPETAC@polaroid.com
> Subject: [filmscanners] 3 year wait
>
>
> Hello
>
> I've been intending to buy a film scanner for 3 years now. I have a
> collection of 3500+ consumer grade negatives (Kodak, Fuji, 100 - 400) and
> this grows weekly. Should I buy a filmscanner now or should I wait even
> longer for a better iteration of technology :-(
>
> I want to scan the negatives once only as there are so many of them. So I
> have to get it right first time. I am scanning for archival purposes, that
> means getting every last bit of information out of the negatives.
>
> I don't want to scan everything and find that in fact a 5000 dpi 4.0
> scanner released later in the year resolves more detail in the film.
> Should I just buy a Nikon 4000 ED or a Polariod 4000+ now?
>
> I have everyhing else, the enormous PC, the file format (JPEG 2000) and
the
> CD writer.
>
> Any advice appreciated
> James


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body