|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Paul, Before you do that, I want you to try something that I've been working on. 1) Scan your 35mm slides on your 836 at maximum optical resolution. That should yield you an image somewhere just shy of 1200x800 pixels. 2) In your image editor, upsample to 1200x800. Apply no unsharp masking. 3) Get this image printed at 4x6 inches at a service bureau that uses a Lightjet 5000, Fujix Pictrophy 3000/4000, Sienna FotoPrint, Kodak Pegasus, or any other digital continuous tone printer. An Epson 750/1200 MAY suffice. I'm not sure. 4) Scan this print on the 836XL at 800dpi. Resulting image should be 3200x4800 pixels. 5) Print this image at 16x20. I'm in the process of doing this right now (I have an Epson Expression 800). But I'm trying to see if I can get an acceptable 16x20 from a 1280x1024 image from a digital camera. This is why I think it will work. Digital photographic prints at 4x6 inches from images that contain at least 200 dpi worth of data (800x1200 pixels) have proven to come very close if not matching drug store/mini-lab quality photographic prints. Drug store/mini-lab 4x6 inch prints can provide for very nice 16x20 inch prints when scanned on a decent flatbed that will procide enough optical resolution (800dpi) for a 200dpi print at 16x20 inches (3200x4000 pixels). Therefore, if a digital print can in fact equal a drug store/mini-lab quality print, then it should also be able to source a 16x20 of the same/similar. So far (I'm not done yet), this has proven to be true for me. The reason I believe it will work is because unlike upsampling, the flatbed doesn't interpolate up to the maximum dpi of it's optical resolution. Therefore, it WILL NOT scan more detail, but it will RETAIN more detail when it scans the print. Interpolation turns images soft because the software doesn't know what's real image data. It creates gray pixels between white and black pixels. But the real scene might not have any gray. Interpolation tends to anti-alias the image. You can recover some of the sharpness with unsharpmasking, but it too is only guessing. The flatbed will scan what is there. Period. More importantly (compared to interpolation) it won't create things that are not there. The result should will a sharper more accurate image. I am in no way suggesting that this process will produce an image that will match the quality available from a film scanner in high pixel count images. But for many applications, I believe the results will be of ore than acceptable quality. At least, this is what I believe at this time. paulgotts wrote: > I have an Epson Expression 836XL with a trans adapter and I have a lot > of 35mm slides of my oil paintings from 30 yrs of being a full time > professional artist.When I try to scan a 35mm slide of my art at 800 > dpi with the Epson 836XL --"800 x 1200dpi" scanner and then make a 16 x > 20 print with my Epson 3000 it is a little pixelated. > I normaly print 16 x 20 size on arches 90lb cold press watercolor paper. > > I have been thinking about getting a35mm film scanner,either the > NikonLS2000--2700 dpi or the Polaroid SprintScan 4000--4000 dpi so I > will then be able to get a good16 x 20 print from a 35mm without > pixelization showing. > > http://luminous-landscape.com/polaroid_4000.htm has a good site about > his experience with the Polaroid SprintScan 4000 > Do any of you ACTUALY have either scanner and how do you like it? > I am thinking about getting the Polaroid because it is 4000 dpi and > would like to also get the Epson 9000 printer. > Have any of you ever taken a 35mm using the NikonLS2000 or the Polaroid > SprintScan 4000 and printed it out a 30"x 40" or larger print on a large > format inkjet printer with good results. > > Thanks > Paul Gotts > > - > Please do not include an entire message in your response. Delete the excess. > http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. -- Mike Greer Explore potential income opportunities with Greer and Associates at http://www.ibocity.com/greeraa. Also, Come visit my digital photography web site along with a lot of other interesting stuff at http://www.greer.simplenet.com. - Please do not include an entire message in your response. Delete the excess. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users