|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
> 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. Rafe: It is not that they can not make medium format scanners with high resolution. It's a case that when everyone wants a scanner for under $1000.00 it can't be done. Higher resolution means higher production costs, which means higher end user costs. A high end scanner for medium format would cost somewhere in the range of $7,000 to $10,000. When someone is worried if a piece of printing paper is going to cost them .50 do you think they'll spend this kind of money for a scanner. Jim Davis www.visual-artists.com/paper -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users