> > The > > Nikon scan has a lot more shadow detail. > > And you can tell that from a 72DPI web photo? Yes. Isn't it obvious? > I can't imagine that anyone can accurately judge tonality and scan quality > from 72PPI JPEG web image displayed on a who knows what monitor! I don't think anyone is trying to make super critical judgements here. To me the scans need to be better matched before attempting to draw any conclusions about scanner quality. My best guess would be that the lack of shadow detail in the Leafscan was due to an out-of-level scanner. I hear that's a common problem (table sag) with 85 pound scanners.
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scan... Alessandro Pardi
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks... Raphael Bustin
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP s... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: B... rafeb
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (wa... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolutio... Dan Honemann
- filmscanners: RE: filmscanners:... Rob Geraghty
- RE: filmscanners: RE: filmscann... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Moreno Polloni
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Moreno Polloni
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Scanner resol... rafeb
- Re: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Dave King
- Re: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Dave King
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resol... rafeb
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Dan Honemann
- Re: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Dave King
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resol... Raphael Bustin
- RE: filmscanners: Scanner resol... rafeb