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: film and scanning vs digital photography



Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying the scanner is poor: on the contrary.
I agree with you that it's an excellent machine, and I noticed some
months ago that they sell on E-bay for more than I paid new.  However,
I've only got one slide which seems to benefit from 2700+ or so, and
that was taken by my father on a Nikon 35mm compact!  Perhaps part of
this issue is not so much about the potential of film+ scan v. digital,
more about what people routinely achieve in practice. I think I'd argue
that digital is more consistent, hence the mean quality is v. good but
perhaps inferior to the "best" film.

John





-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of
lotusm50@sprynet.com
Sent: 08 June 2007 12:59
To: john@sykesj.co.uk
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography


Really?  That is very surprising.  I scan 35mm film at 5400dpi on my
KonicaMinolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II, and the quality is stunningly
good.  It really gets every last bit of information in the film. Output
from any 3mp camera you can find would be laughable by comparison.  I
have found the output from this scanner to be superior to the output
available from the range of 8-10mp DLSR's (certainly at lower ISO's,
less so at higher ISO's), and noticeably superior to lower resolution
scans on the same scanner.  It's a shame this scanner is no longer made.


John Sykes wrote
> I was somewhat shocked when I tried scanning some old
> negs to find there was little or no improvement gained by scanning
> above the default resolution set on the Minolta Dimage 5400 (1350dpi).

> This is roughly equivalent to 2Mp. Perhaps this is down to using
> "ordinary" film, but I'd say that a good 3 megapixel camera will give
> similar or better results to those I used to obtain from analogue.
>

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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/838 - Release Date:
07/06/2007 14:21


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/838 - Release Date:
07/06/2007 14:21



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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.