Thank you for all the work you do for this reply! On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <godd...@mac.com> wrote: > I have the Epson V700, which is rated to collect data at similar densities. > > I did a number of tests to compare actual acquired data between it and the > two film scanners I own, the Minolta Scan Dual II and Nikon Coolscan IV ED. > These are rated at 2820 and 2900 ppi respectively. I found that the very > best I can get out of the Epson V700 shows about 2600 ppi tops, more like > 2400 ppi, where with the two film scanners the actual resolution is very > close to the rated data density, probably at least 2800 ppi. I attribute > this to a) no glass in the light path and b) a focusing lens system on the > film scanners. > > The lower actuance and slight gaussian defocus evident with the flatbed > scanner has a minor side effect of softening dust and scratches on film, > which can sometimes be handy. The images sharpen up nicely with Photoshop > CS2's Smart Sharpen filter but that's not the same as having more detail to > work with. > > So scanning at 4800 ppi with the flatbed scanner is pretty much a waste of > space in terms of actual data you'll acquire. I tried oversampling on scan > and downsampling as Paul suggested ... I saw no difference in the > end-product image quality scanning at maximum interpolated resolution vs > scanning at 3200 ppi, and the maximum took four times as long and created > needlessly enormous files to manage. > > With either of the film scanners, I've been able to create excellent B3 > Super prints of full-frame 35mm scans. It's not easy ... you need an > excellent negative and careful attention to rendering to get around the > issues of grain and emulsion defects, but it's possible. 8x10 to 11x14 sized > prints are certainly much easier to produce. > > It's important to remember that creating an 11x14 print from a 35mm negative > is an 11x enlargement, at minimum, even optically in a darkroom. Most film > max'es out at around 15x enlargement for decent quality. Adding the scanning > process into the enlargement workflow adds a few percentage points of > additional losses but allows appropriate digital image processing to help > recover that, which can add up to a plus IFF you know what you're doing with > image processing/rendering. "Better a clean and beautiful 5x7 than a lesser > 10x15." > > Making quality prints is much more than just counting pixels and figuring > dimensions ... ! > > Godfrey > > > > On Mar 12, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Nick Wright wrote: > >> Really? Wow. I had no idea. I found some web site saying that would >> just be enough for an 8x10, and I thought that's definitely more >> resolution than "just" and 8x10. Didn't realize it was that much more. >> >> Thanks. >> >> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 6:47 PM, John Francis <jo...@panix.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 06:31:38PM -0500, Nick Wright wrote: >>>> >>>> Okay, one more scanner question. >>>> >>>> The Epson v300 says that it scans 35mm film at 4800 dpi. What does >>>> that equate to in terms of megapixels? >>> >>> Well, a frame of 35mm film is 36 x 24 mm. At 25.4mm per inch, that's >>> >>> (36/25.4)*4800 * (24/25.4)*4800 = near enough 30 megapixels. >>> >>> That's 90MB at 24 bits/pixel, or a whopping 180MB at 48 bits per pixel. >>> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. >
-- ~Nick David Wright http://pedalingprose.wordpress.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
