First, and on topic, my impression of the results agrees with you conclusion. OT observation: Frame content varies. Maybe I just haven't seen enough trans scanner comparisons.(?) May be a common phenomenon.
Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hallo, > > I took a 35mm film negative and scanned it a variety of ways with the > > Epson V700, Nikon LS-40 and Minolta Scan Dual II. Here is a page with > > links to 1:1 detail snippets and two sizings of the image, scanned at > > two different resolutions with the V700 and at max rez with the > LS-40. (I didn't include the Scan Dual II as its output is for all > intents and purposes identical in this case to the Nikon LS-40.) > > http://homepage.mac.com/godders/V700_35test/ > > Overall, my conclusions: > > - You can make some very high quality scans even of 35mm negatives > with the V700. > > - It's not as convenient to use as the dedicated film scanners, and > the Nikon is significantly easier to use than the Minolta (as well as > > faster). > > - The film scanners resolve more than the V700, even with lower > resolution. They pick up minute scratches and dust particle images > that are simply too small for the V700 to capture. However, with > suitable post processing, the results in print look nearly identical. > > The last tests I'm doing are for Minox 8x11 subminiature film format > > scanning > Then I want to get back to doing photography. ;-) > > Godfrey > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
