Three of the best scanning pros in the Berkeley area almost always scan at more than 4000ppi. Kevin, the one I work closest with, has found that for his setup 5800ppi is about ideal in most situations. Rob over at the Lightroom scans at about the same resolution for the most part. Both, of course, adjust the resolution to accommodate the negative. Both Rob and Kevin use a minimum of the Imacon 646, sometimes the 848. The fellow at Pictopia (sorry, I can't recall his name) often works at higher rez, but of course he uses a somewhat better scanner than those cheap, puny Imacons - the Heidelberg Tango drum scanner. I'm pretty sure his scans approach or exceed 8000ppi (for some reason 9000ppi and greater comes to mind). Anyway, if you are one who believes that scanning at anything greater than 4000ppi is a waste, then I suggest you see the work that these fellows do, or hie thee to a place that rents time on one or another of these scanners and see for yourself. The Minoltas, Nikons, Epson, Canons, and whatnot that most people use are far from high quality, imo.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: graywolf > Well, anyone with an Imacon just send it to me. You just heard from two > experts it is worthless. > > <GRIN> > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > > > Mark Roberts wrote: > > >Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>There comes a point in resolution when scanning film that all you're > >>doing is resolving more emulsion defects too. At 2820ppi, I can see > >>the grain clearly in ASA 100 film. Most of the benefit from 3000 ppi > >>upwards is in grain imaging, rather than actual picture quality. > >> > >> > > > >I've noticed the same thing. > > > > > > > >
