Bob:
I had an interesting experience the other day. I had a 35mm slide
printed(8x10) by the Fuji Frontier 370 system. The Fuji system is
apparently 5000 dpi and uses a laser to expose Fuji Crystal paper
which is then chemically developed. The Fuji print was noticeably
sharper(by unaided eye) then the same slide scanned on my Minolta
Elite(2880 dpi) and printed at 8x10 with an Epson 1270. Examining the
Fuji print with a 20x magnifier revealed that it was much smoother
then the Epson print(In addition to resolving more detail). The
interesting part is that the scan itself has the fine detail that the
Fuji print is showing. This leads me to conclude that the printer is
the main limiting device with a 2880 dpi scan at 8x10. When Epson
releases a 1 picoliter printer the 4000 dpi scanners will be a
necessity for producing the sharpest prints. And as you are saying a
4000 dpi scanner will give one a better shot at producing decent
large prints using todays inkjet printers.
Ray
>I agree. Most people don't need 4000dpi. There seems to be very little
>difference between 2700dpi and 4000dpi for 8"x10" printing. Although there
>is some difference and some people on this list would insist it is a notable
>difference. But I want to sell large prints for corporate and home display
>puposes. I think they call it art. : )
>I see no reason why only the painters get to frame their artwork in 24"x36"
>frames. I'd like to see how close I can get with 35mm film. For that I
>need all the reolution the film will yield. If 2700dpi with interpolation
>is almost as good as 4000dpi, then how good is 4000dpi with interpolation?
>I'd like to find out.
>
>As for the cost of more computing power, you're right again. No reason to
>run out and plop down money just to make good 8x10's, but I want to see how
>large I can print without using my view camera. So I'm the exception. I'll
>spend a few thousand bucks to see what it will do for me.
>
>Bob Kehl
