Re: Canvas to 3000

["J. Arthur Davis" <jarthurdavis@earthlink.net>]

> 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.