> There is no way a hand-held shot at 1/8th second is going to be > considered 'sharp' under any conditions and no matter what the > experience of the user. I get shots that are very much considered sharp at 1/8, and I do it quite frequently. I have quite a high resolution scanner, and I can see sharp and not so sharp quite easily. Most of my work is existing light these days, so I routinely shoot 1/15 and 1/8. Yes, it does depend on the skills of the operator, the camera, and the scene. ==================================================================== 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.
- Re: 4000dpi (was film scanner mailing list) =shAf=
- Re: 4000dpi (was film scanner mailing list) Dave King
- Re: 4000dpi (was film scanner mailing list) Geoff Stafford
- Re: 4000dpi (was film scanner mailing lis... Jeffrey Goggin
- RE: 4000dpi (was film scanner mailin... Ginny
- Re: 4000dpi (was film scanner ma... photoscientia
- Re: 4000dpi (was film scanner mailing list) Tony Sleep
- RE: film scanner mailing list Austin Franklin
- RE: film scanner mailing list Geoff Stafford
- Re: film scanner mailing list Ron Carlson
- Re: film scanner mailing list Austin Franklin
- Re: film scanner mailing list Jim Snyder
- Re: film scanner mailing list Derek Clarke
- Cleaning negs/transparencies Geoff Stafford
- Re: Cleaning negs/transparencies Zeuspaul
- Re: Cleaning negs/transparencies jeremy spence
- Re: Cleaning negs/transparencies Geoff Stafford
- Re: film scanner mailing list Arthur Entlich
- RE: film scanner mailing list Austin Franklin
- RE: film scanner mailing list Austin Franklin