Hi!
The town where I live has only one Pro Foto Shop. It has many Foto
Shops, but only one grades itself as Pro. Anyway, my two most recent
films were scanned at 4000dpi with Nikon CoolScan 4000. Two days ago I
was taking my most recent film (from which by the way I published to
M35/2.8
A 4000 dpi scan with a bit depth of 16 bits/color give a file that is around 120 mb.
See if turning on ICE cleans up the scans without hurting resolution too much. FARE on
the Canon scanners works great without hurting resolution; I do not have to do any
post scan clean up with FARE set to
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 18:31:48 +0400, Boris Liberman wrote:
The town where I live has only one Pro Foto Shop. It has many Foto
Shops, but only one grades itself as Pro. Anyway, my two most recent
films were scanned at 4000dpi with Nikon CoolScan 4000.
Boy, I wish I could get that in my area.
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 18:36
Subject: Re: Funny news
That depends on the scanner. Even ignoring the time required to swap
six-frame strips, scanning is much slower at 4000 ppi than at 1000 dpi
on my Canon FS4000. Like, 1000 ppi scans take less than five minutes
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 22:16:04 -0400, Herb Chong wrote:
the Nikon 4000ED has a full roll holder. you put the entire roll
in. it also is much faster. the minimal processing 4000dpi scan
takes under 40 seconds per frame. the change in speed is negligible
to drop to 1000 dpi.
Two darned good
, 2003 22:21
Subject: Re: Funny news
Two darned good reasons for me to look into dumping the FS 4000 in
favor of the 4000ED. But the last time I looked, the price of the
4000ED would buy me about four weekends of racing, where the FS4000
only cost me about one and a half. :-)
On 15 Jul 2003 at 22:28, Herb Chong wrote:
rumor has it that Nikon is going to be dropping the 4000ED and replacing it with
a new model, possibly at a lower cost. nothing substantial enough for me to know
whether i should believe the rumor or not. the list price plus rebate has
dropped to
7 matches
Mail list logo
