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] RE: Pixels and Prints

> my claim was that 900x900 pixels of a 1Ds
> image look a
> lot better than 900x900 pixels of a 4000 dpi scanned image if you
> print them
> at the same size.


Your terms are amorphous.  "looks a lot better" in what regard?  What may
look a lot better to you, or to anyone else, may not look a lot better to
someone else...depending on their experience and criteria.

BTW, previously, your claim was from a 35mm camera...but you haven't listed
what 35mm camera/film you used to do this comparison...  I'll take it, since
you listed the cameras you have, that you used one of the MF cameras you
have to do this "comparison".  If that's true, then you should realize that
typically, MF lenses are designed for a larger image circle than 35mm
lenses, and therefore, that same 900x900 part of the film can be quite
different...  I, personally, note a difference when I zoom in and examine
raw scanned pixels, between my Zeiss lenses for my Contax cameras, vs my
Rollei 2.8F and even my Hasselblad.  So, are you using MF for your
comparison, or do you have a 35mm that you are doing this with?

So, IMO, to make a fair/meaningful comparison, you should take into
consideration the size difference in the sensor vs the film, and also
qualify your criteria for better.



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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.