Actually, I find that I get more detail (subjectively) from a 6x6 scan
and discussed this with some people at a camerashop. they told me that I
probably was right since they though that the quality of the 6x6 film
also is bettter. I dont know it this is true - but it could be that the
6x6 has a bit thicker emulsion which "maybe" improves the result. I
havent made any scientific check on resoultion though but I'm sure it
easier for me to get god scans from 6x6 than 24x36. I use an Epson 2400
scanner by the way - not top of the professional but still giving me
very god 6x6 scans with a lot of detail in them.
Cheers,
Ronald
Jack Davis wrote:
Thanks, Ron,
Realizing that the 6x6 records more detail, it at long
last, occurred to me that I might be limiting it's
recovery by using a single scan level for both
formats.
My excuse is that I was thinking (?) in terms of
square inches rather that frame size.
Jack
--- Ronald Arvidsson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You will have more detail in the 6x6 since there is
more detail in the
6x6 negative than the 24x36. Its two equations
basically
resiloution6x6*resolution-scanner=scanned image6x6
resolution24-36*resolution scanner= scanned
image24x36
However, you are right in the sense that you can get
out more of the 6x6
if the scanner has the resoution allowing it. Still
I think if the
scanner is of high enough quality 100MB would
suffice.
Cheers,
Ronald
Jack Davis wrote:
If a 6x6cm frame is scanned at 100MB and a 35mm
frame
is scanned at 100MB, will the 35mm frame relinquish
a
greater share of its information than will the 6x6?
IOW, in order to achieve an equal scan saturation,
would it be necessary to scan the 6x6 at 360MB?
(6x6
area =3.6 times that of the 35)
Guess I don't have enough to do:)
Jack
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
