The other day I posted a Pentax 645 photo made with the 35mm lens,
scanned with a new Epson V700 scanner:
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/19b.htm
One person mentioned that running it at 8x sampling would help
improve resolution, another person mentioned that setting the
negati
The res is definitely better at the 6400 dpi
resolution. But the file sizes are getting big.
My question is, are you pulling out the grain, as
well? One of the things I've noticed when scanning
black and white is that going full tilt boogie for
resolution ends up giving me detail but with grain.
T
Anxious to see the 35mm scan comparisons. Put them up against a 100 ISO
K10D image having received one click of "Auto Sharpen".
Jack
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The other day I posted a Pentax 645 photo made with the 35mm lens,
> scanned with a new Epson V700 scanner:
>
> --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> There is certainly a gain in resolution going to the
>> 6400 ppi scans
>> albeit at a big price in disk space ... the 16bit
>> grayscale TIFF file
>> grows from 73.3 Mbytes to 293.3 Mbytes.
>>
>> Comments?
Can't say without seeing "actu
Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One person mentioned that running it at 8x sampling would help
> improve resolution..
I mentioned the 8x sampling with Vuewscan but I never suggested it
improves resolution. How could it? It does however have a marked effect
on density range and sca
On Apr 20, 2007, at 1:03 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote:
>> One person mentioned that running it at 8x sampling would help
>> improve resolution..
>
> I mentioned the 8x sampling with Vuewscan but I never suggested it
> improves resolution. How could it? It does however have a marked
> effect
> o
Thanks for all the comments.
I've spent a bit of time running more scans and now I'm figuring out
what's what for 35mm and subminiature formats, but I thought I'd
respond to a couple of these notes.
>>http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW7/19b.htm
>>http://homepage.mac.com/godder
Why? Because I'd be interested in seeing YOUR results. ;-)
Jack
--- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for all the comments.
>
> I've spent a bit of time running more scans and now I'm figuring out
>
> what's what for 35mm and subminiature formats, but I thought I'd
> respo
I'm sorry, but I don't know what you're trying to see. The only
reason to do this is to compare a film and scan vs a digital capture
of the same subject. That's boring ... it's been done.
Besides, I don't know what you use to do your DSLR image processing
is, but I don't have anything that i
Well, it's been done to death, I know. The web will, also, give one
about all they can stand.
The reason it's been done and is being done is because of irrepressible
curiosity about camera and process comparisons.
I don't think I need to explain "what I'm trying to see" and I accept
that your tests
10 matches
Mail list logo
