the only one of my friends to own an Imacon uses it at no higher than 4000dpi and says that its a waste of resolution too. going to true 16-bit mode instead of adding the bits from 14-bit mode is the only major thing i would like changed. have you compared a Nikon 4000ED to the Imacon? there are 4000dpi scanners and there are 4000dpi scanners. is it a drum scanner that extracts the last bit of sharpness from the slide? no, but given that the only lens i have that pushes the limits of 4000dpi is my FA 50mm f2.8 macro, and only when shooting with Velvia on a tripod, i'd say that the times when the difference even has a chance of showing up isn't as high as you would like.
Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 10:08 PM Subject: Re: New scanner > There's more to it than "details of the grain." > > One of the things I noticed was increased sharpness on most scans, due, I'm > sure, to the way the Imacons hold the slide against the drum and the more > even scanning the drum scanner provides, as well as better shadow detail and > better separation in the shadows (between zones 1,2,3). Is it enough to > make a difference to some people? Probably not. However, I happened to see > a very interesting demonstration of where this difference became quite > significant, and that was when making a very large print from a 4 x 5 slide > (abt 40 x 50 final print). That's not to say the differences aren't > observable in smaller sized prints - they are - and even more so when making > large transparencies.
