Dear Byron,
> > Trying to speed up the process of post-scanning manipulation I have found no
> image
> > deterioration then downsampling from 4000 dpi to 3000 dpi in PhotoShop 5.5.
> > I have made the tests on tripod with Velvia and the even better Provia 100F
> using a
> > near-Leica quality lens.
>
>
> If downsampled 3000 dpi looks the same as 4000 dpi when viewed at full
> resolution on screen, then your scanner isn't providing any image detail beyond
> 4000 dpi (just extra pixels). If that is true, your approach is reasonable.
My guess is that you can maybe use 75% of the scanners info.
So a 4000 dpi scan is a better starting point rather than a 2700 dpi.
> The jury is out on whether the Polaroid/Microtek really does have higher detail
> than 3000 dpi based on the group scan results.
>
> Perhaps you can post a crop of a highly detailed section (where you can see
> more detail on the slide than in the scan) and show us the 3000 dpi and 4000
> dpi results. This will tell us if the unit really does have detail above 3000
> dpi.
>
> Cheers,
> Byron
Have a look for yourself at the attached image. It is the Kodak Q60E3 to the left and
a Provia 100F picture to the right.
The lower chops have been downsampled from 4000 dpi to 3000 dpi and then back.
Finally I have upsized 2x, so what you see is DOUBLE PIXEL SIZE. So for real
comparison: Have a look at 50% in your image editor!
The jpg compression gives a pretty good impression of the effect.
What really matters to me is that it gives more or less the same quality on a 13"x19"
print with my Epson 1270.
This seems to work with extremely fine grain film, i.e. Provia 100F and Velvia.
And again the effect of the USM is a bit different.
-Mikkel
====================================================================
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
4000 dpi vs. 3000 dpi.jpg