Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > For 35mm transparencies and negatives, a Spiratone Dupliscope II with > the negative accessory (can't recall the name) is commonly available on > EBay for $35-60 and does an excellent job. These units have a dedicated > flat-field macro lens and use a T-mount to fit to nearly any camera. > > In my experience, more than the equivalent of about 4000 dpi scan nets > no additional advantage with most films. Only with some very high > resolution films (exposed to maximize resolution with sturdy support, > etc) is there any real value gained from the increased scan/capture > resolution. In fact, the vast majority of hand-held work on standard > color or B&W emulsions sees very very little gain between 2400 and 4000 > dpi capture resolution. There's just very little additional real data > there ...
Godfrey, Igor & Mark, Thanks for your comments. In my case, I pretty much know I'm looking for the impossible; a much more rapid way to transfer slides to digital images. I know that the Epson I use does a great job, but it's a slow process, and I have thousands and thousands still to do. As I've found from the Epson, larger dpi scans above 4000 tend to show up imperfections in - or rather on - slides, such as really tiny specs of dust which even with decent cleaning and dust reduction still show, giving more work in Lightroom at a later date. A K3 sensor sized image is really all I need, but it is keeping the quality that the scanner provides that is the issue. Some of these scans from slides I enlarge to A3 prints after work to correct all the howling errors, such as 100% level horizons etc have been adjusted all these years on. The fact I can restore or improve pictures taken in the 1970s still amazes me, but now I want it faster. Some people, you just can't please. Malcolm -- 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.
