Seems that it was around 2000 dpi. Fine for an 8X10 or 11X14, but not bigger.
-- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, July 22, 2004, 12:38:43 PM, you wrote: TC> Bruce, TC> Thanks for the hunches and the insight on the lab scans. What resolution TC> were the labs scanning at? TC> Tom C. >>From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? >>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:31:20 -0700 >> >>Interesting dilemma - my hunch is that Portra and some form of pro >>slide film will be available for some time for MF and LF. One of the >>issues that moved me away from the 67ii is that my local labs are all >>printing my nice big negs digitally. So the same low res scanner that >>handles 35mm film is being used when I have the 67 negs printed. Up >>to 8X10 it is not too bad, but beyond that, the quality isn't there to >>justify the bigger neg. I was just carrying around bigger equipment >>and paying much more per shot without getting enough benefit from it. >> >>So what you do with the film after you shoot it may have some bearing >>on your decision also. I feel that the ability to buy and process >>(pro grade) film will still be around in the time frames you are >>talking, but the price may continue to go up. >> >>When I was shooting 67, the cost per frame (film, develop, proof) was >>around $1.35. Unless someone was paying me to shoot, I didn't burn >>through much film. >> >>YMMV >> >>Bruce >>
