Re: Canvas to 3000

["Rafe B." <rafeb@channel1.com>]

Robert Hildebrand (?) wrote:

>Rafe B. 
>    Why do you have to turn things around?  My statement wasn't  
>about Hasselblad or any other  medium format 
>camera.  I have had Hasselblads for 35 years.  What I said was 
>the current technology used in medium  format 
>scanners leaves much to be desired,  to the point that  because 
>of them , Hasselblads and the rest don't have a clear advantage  
>as they should if the technology  in the medium format scanners 
>were adequate.   To take advantage of the wonderful quality achieved 
>by some of these cameras, one has to use a $30,000. drum scanner.  
>The  $2,500  Medium format scanners  don't cut it.  For economy sake, 
>I don't use my Hasselblad as much as I would like because every time 
>I did, it cost me $35. a frame.  I do wish there were a good medium 
>format scanner. 
>Rafe I bet you will figure some way of turning this around. 
  

Not my intention at all; I cued in on a different 
portion of your original post.  It seems we agree
more than we disagree.

I agree that scanners for 6x6 cm are puzzling --
why so low a resolution?

Part of the answer is that the CCD imager itself
must be allocated across the width of the media,
and in this case the media is 2.25" square, 
rather than 1" x 1.5"  On the other hand, Sony
makes linear CCD arrays with 5000, 7500, even
10,0000 pixels along the length.  So what's
the problem?

The other issue may be that the market for 2.25"
film scanners is even smaller than the one for
35 mm scanners, so technological progress is
slower still.

It would seem that photographers using 6x6 cm 
format are either:

* not going digital yet,
* going digital but using drum scanners,
* going digital but using some other means to
  scan their images.
* using digital backs and skipping film
  entirely ??!?!


rafe b.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages.
http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.