[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography

2007-07-11 Thread Hanna, Mark (x9085)
I also think it is not correct to simply use jpeg fine with 'no sharpening' for the comparison, as the defaults in each camera could well be different. Some sharpening is likely to be applied in camera to a jpeg even if switched to zero sharpening. He explained away the fact that he could not

[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography

2007-07-11 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a Tak FS78 and quite a few accessories for such antics, but you can't use them on the fly. This is a panorama I just finished last week, with the distance varying from 15 to 20 miles. > http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/june2007/ttr_pano_1.jp2 You will need a jpeg2000 viewer such as i

[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography

2007-07-11 Thread James L. Sims
Ah, but you're redefined the scope of reach! Just how long is the lens you used for this project? Or, just how small is your sensor? I can see that you don't need high spatial frequency, scintillation pretty much wipes out resolution at that distance. Great job though! I am surprised and impres

[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography

2007-07-11 Thread [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The focal length is a bit over 600mm. I use a barlow, so the focal length is around 3000mm effective. The images are from Astia 100f (35mm), scanned on the Minolta 5400 II, but reduced by two. Obviously, the image is tweaked quite a bit in photoshop. The raw image is very blue. I use a long pass f