Austin wrote:
> What are you using for lenses? Hopefully primes? Yes, the lense
> does have a LOT to do with it, as I found out going from Nikon
> primes to Leica/Contax primes...
Nothing in the same league. If I was using Leica/Contax primes,
I'd probably need 4000ppi to get the best scans -
Roger wrote:
> It sounds like you want to know how much money you
> should spend on lenses (and maybe what brand) in
> order to get decent scans.
Better scans, yes. The scans I get now are "decent" enough for me, but
they could be better. All these terms are relative. :)
> The best 35mm lens w
John wrote:
> Don't think that these $800-3000 scanner toys we are using
> are the best it will get or the best that is out there.
I have a Nikon LS30. It's technology which is what, four years old? There's
much better scanners on the market now if one has the money. I don't.
Having said that
Dave wrote:
> A Polaroid SS4000, courtesy of the recent great price.
> Before that an LS-30 and both using VueScan.
Thanks, Dave. The other thing I meant to ask was what 800 speed film?
Is it Fuji Superia 800 print film?
Rob
PS Tony Sleep has mentioned in the past that he often uses his SS400
> Austin wrote:
> > What are you using for lenses? Hopefully primes? Yes, the lense
> > does have a LOT to do with it, as I found out going from Nikon
> > primes to Leica/Contax primes...
>
> Nothing in the same league. If I was using Leica/Contax primes,
> I'd probably need 4000ppi to get the
00ppi a
limiting factor in sharpness?
Roger wrote:
> It sounds like you want to know how much money you
> should spend on lenses (and maybe what brand) in
> order to get decent scans.
Better scans, yes. The scans I get now are "decent" enough for me, but
they could be bett
bject: RE: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting
factor in sharpness?
| Hi Rob! Again, I envy your opportunities for combining excitement and
| photography!
| I have another idea to help with camera shake. I was talking to an aerial
| photographer at a trade show rece
Rob Geraghty wrote
> John wrote:
> > If you have an image that is that "good" get a drum scan
> > from Nancy Scans (11,000 dpi?) or somewhere.
>
> I suspect the cost of sending the film from Austraila to the States and
> returning the result on a CDR (if indeed an 11K scan would fit) would be
> p
)
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 6:36 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: 2700ppi a
limiting factor in sharpness?
> Dave wrote:
> > A Polaroid SS4000,
> I
> wonder if this is due to some sort of "stacking" effect (Austin?),
You're over the extent of my knowledge here, but thanks for the thought ;-)
Austin wrote:
>Ah, yes. Seriously, DO chase a better lense! The Contax 50/1.4 is a
>cheapie and any of the Contax lenses are in the same league as Leica glass.
>It's Zeiss glass...and they are superb performers, most any of them, and
>about 1/3rd to 1/4th the price of Leica glass.
I'd love to,
Dave wrote:
>is simply more grain in some areas of the negative than others. I
>wonder if this is due to some sort of "stacking" effect (Austin?),
>whereby areas with dyes closer to the color of the base appear
>grainier.
Tony - are you around? Tony mentioned something about different grain bei
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Obscanning: Has anyone else noticed the difference in sharpness
between
> their lenses when scanning films?
>
> Rob
Not particularly, but nearly all of my Nikkors are at least pretty
good, and some of them are excellent. The softest 35mm lens I own is
a S
--- Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In an
> ideal
> world I might go for Contax or Leica, but I have very limited funds,
> so
> the best choice seems to be get a good lens for the gear I already
> have.
You don't need Leica and Contax lenses to see a difference. Most better
brands have
14 matches
Mail list logo
