I have a question for the group. I recently upgraded from a original Photosmart scanner for 35mm film to a Nikon LS-IV scanner. I recently scanned about 100-200 images from a trip and then changed scanners and monitors. The Photosmart was 2400DPI scanner and teh Nikon was a 2900DPI scanner. This past weekend I opened up some of the old scanned images and was looking at them and noticed that there is a big difference in the scans compared to new scans I have done with the Nikon scanner.
Question is.. IT is worth my time to rescan all those images again.... It will take some time to do since I will have to fish them out again. Secondly, I have been burning my finished scans onto Verbatim CD-R discs. But I have read and been recommended recently that the Kodak Ultima CD-R 80 are better for long term storage. Does anyone have a opinion on this? Thanks Eric ====================== > > > Dare I say it, but the mistake here might be the belief that a 4000dpi > > scanner is actually capable of 4000dpi scans (or "samples per inch", if > > we > > want to reduce confusion). > > > > Anyone got any hard evidence of the *actual* resolving power of these > > scanners? > > Objectively measured? No. AIUI it's pretty hard (ie expensive) to achieve, > as conventional test target images don't work properly with digital > systems. In any case, I am more interested in real-life use :) > > Empirically, yes - I have scanned several ISO100 originals on both > 2,700ppi and 4,000 ppi scanners. There is a difference, which is somewhat > analogous to that between fast and fine-grain film but without the grain! > At the same time it's obvious but subtle. The 4000ppi scans show better > tonal smoothness and inner detail, though only look marginally sharper. > > Printed on the same Epson 1200, both are perfectly acceptable, especially > in terms of sharpness, but the 4000 scan looks somehow smoother and > clearer, whilst the 2700 appears almost slightly smeared or veiled. But > you'd only really notice this in a side-by-side comparison. After carrying > out this test, I concluded I wouldn't be bothering to rescan all the stuff > I had done at 2700, apart from a few originals which had produced massive > grain aliasing problems. 4000ppi is very much less sensitive to that. > > I suspect the Nikon mentioned was having a bad focus day. > > Regards > > Tony Sleep > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner > info & comparisons >