|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
>PS I suppose I could predict that someone will now tell me that a medium- or >large-format combo weighs less than my 35mm setup. I won't tell you that nor will I attempt to argue that one should use medium or large format in a hand held fashion when shooting. :-) While I know plenty of professionals who use medium format (645,6x6, 6x7 Mamyia, Hasselblad, and Bronica, and other brand) cameras everyday and a few who use large format (4x5 and 8x10 flatbed and monorail view) cameras more than merely occasionally in my area (not only commercial photographers but also wedding and portrait photographers) with most buying their film from large professional vendors (like Calumet and B&H) and not the local camera store, the point of my argument was not to convince you to switch to 35mm but to suggest why some of those who use film scanners can wind up with spare pixels above the 380ppi when scaling the image to 8x10 from the original film format size. >As for flatbeds used for scanning prints, I thought that there was no >benefit in going beyond about 200ppi Correct (I heard 300 ppi); but this is with respect to acquiring additional sharpness, detail, etc. It is not the case if one is talking about resizing or rescaling of images to larger sizes without interpolation. Thus, if you scan a 4x5 inch print at 200 or 300 ppi and rescale or resize it to 8x10, you will wind up with only an optical resolution of 100-150 ppi; but if you scan it at 1200 ppi and rescale or resize it to 8x10, you will wind up with an optical resolution of 600 ppi ( or 300-400 ppi to spare should you wish to rescale the 4x5 to 16x20 at 200 or 300 ppi). In the case of flatbed scanning of prints, the high optical resolutions of the scan are for purposes of rescaling not for purposes of acquiring additional content information or substantive data for sharpness, contrast range, or additional detail in shadows and highlights. -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Bob Frost Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 3:39 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Resolution and Banding Laurie, I agree that if you are using medium- or large-format film you may have surplus pixels. But from looking in the large refrigerators - full of professional film at the photographic dealers that I buy film from - most of it was 35mm. Of the photographers I know, two or three have larger format cameras (Hasselblads or Bronicas) but they tend to remain tucked away in a cupboard and only brought out for 'ceremonial' occasions! So I don't think most of us have surplus pixels, unless we are printing at holiday-snap size. Although I can see the benefits from the larger formats, my 60+ year-old cervical vertebrae simply won't take any more weight than my F100 and AFS 80-200 zoom. I even had to buy a wider strap for that combo recently, to reduce the pressure. So medium- or large-format might be OK for youngsters, studio work, or those who have minions to carry their cameras around, but not for oldies like me who have to carry their own gear, up and down dale. As for flatbeds used for scanning prints, I thought that there was no benefit in going beyond about 200ppi. I must confess that I haven't done any detailed testing in this area, as it is something that I rarely do, but I seem to remember arguments on this list where the 'winner' maintained that his tests showed that there was no further detail to be gained from prints above that resolution. So, if that is the case, using 1200 ppi is probably just a waste of anybody's time and pixels. Bob Frost. PS I suppose I could predict that someone will now tell me that a medium- or large-format combo weighs less than my 35mm setup. C'est la vie! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laurie Solomon" <email@example.com> > Yes, but you are scanning a 35mm frame at the 4000 dpi optical and resizing > it around 8 times to 8x10 which gives and effective optical dpi of around > what you suggest; however, some either are scanning larger formats at 2000 > plus optical dpi which are then resized by only 1/2 the amount you are doing > to get an 8x10 with an optical dpi of around 1000 plus effective dpi or are > scanining an 8x10 print on a flatbed at 1200 optical dpi or greater and not > resixing the image at all to get a 8x10 output to get an effective optical > dpi of around 1200 plus. - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.