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



David,

Remember that this discussion started with my attempt to explain why Getty
and other high end stock photography houses might insist on professional
drum scans over high end prosumer CDD scanners.  The main justification is
that they know the quality that their clients demand but they do not know
the exact range of uses and sizes that will be used by the clients who
license the image or if and how the image may be cropped when used at the
users given enlargement size.

We are not talking about the differences you might see at the size
enlargements that you prefer or about your tastes concerning grain and grain
structure in an image.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of David J.
> Littleboy
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 12:22 AM
> To: laurie@advancenet.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography
>
>
> From: "gary" <lists@lazygranch.com>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> I suspect the "generations" effect is why it takes less resolution in a
> DSLR to be equivalent to film. That is, the EOS-1Ds Mark II, at
> 16Mpixels, is considered to be as good as scanned film, which generally
> exceeds 30MPixels.
>
> I saw a website that compared drum to a dedicated film scanner, with
> the
> claim that you really don't get the full stated resolution with a film
> scanner.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> I've never seen a drum vs. 4000 ppi Nikon comparison that I thought
> showed a
> ntoiceable or significant advantage to the drum scan. The differences
> are
> very much on the order of counting angels on heads of pins.
>
> And the 12.7 and 16MP Canons look a lot more like 645 than 35mm, in
> terms of
> print quality at 12x18. (This guy is printing a lot bigger than I
> would, and
> thus is agonizing over really minor differences.)
>
> http://www.shortwork.net/equip/review-1Ds-SQ-scantech/
>
> David J. Littleboy
> davidjl@gol.com
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title or body


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.