> Winsor wrote: > >It seems to me that the 2700 dpi is the limiting factor. Rather like > >the old joke about the senior citizen stereo sale special. Doesn't > >matter much how good the speakers are if you can't hear them. > > No, I don't think so. I've tried scanning a few of my slides on a Polaroid > SS4000, and the amount of extra information seems small. There's more pixels, > but there doesn't seem to be much difference between a 2700ppi scan resampled > to 4000dpi and the 4000dpi image. The Sprintscan can get more shadow information > out of a slide, but that's dynamic range, which is a different issue. A > very sharp image on the film will give a sharper scan - garbage in garbage > out obviously applies. > > I'm not saying that a higher resolution or dynamic range scanner would be > a bad thing. I'm simply saying that the scanner can't fix problems with > the source. If all my photos were equally fuzzy, I wouldn't know what I > was missing. But the ones taken with prime lenses are significantly sharper > (duh on my part). > > Rob
As someone who recently went from an LS-30 to an SS4000, I agree with you Rob. Unsharpened grain from the SS4000 is a bit crisper, but after interpolation and sharpening the LS-30 files are very close to the SS4000 files, particularily when Vuescan is used with both scanners (the best result from the LS-30 and SS4000). Still, the SS4000 for $500 bucks is a good value, and I'm glad I did it, if only to have an easier time with B&W and Kodachrome. Dave