At 02:29 PM 6/18/01 -0400, Austin wrote: [rafe b:] >> And BTW, when Austin talks about 5080 dpi from 35 mm film, >> he probably should have mentioned that it takes about an hour >> or so to produce that scan, in RGB. I hope you're not in >> a hurry. <g> [Austin:] >That's not entirely true. It depends on the exposure time, and how new the >bulb is. If you set exposure to min, it will scan in around %20 the time. > >B&W is single pass, and can use min exposure, so it is really comparable to >the newer scanners in terms of scan time. I'm afraid I don't understand. Doesn't the proper exposure depend on the image under consideration? That's certainly been the case for the film scanners that I've worked with. I admit that the illuminant can vary a bit in intensity, but you're saying it can vary over a 5:1 range??? rafe b.
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief densi... Lynn Allen
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief ... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief ... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND br... Dave King
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AN... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief ... Dan Honemann
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND br... rafeb
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AN... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light ... rafeb
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of l... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification ... rafeb
- RE: filmscanners: Magnificat... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Magnificat... rafeb
- RE: filmscanners: Magnificat... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND br... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief ... Lynn Allen