|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
--- Gerald Olson <email@example.com> wrote: > DA, > > 1600 DPI is probably fine for medium format, but it isn't nearly high > enough for 35mm. For that you need the standard 2720 DPI, or better yet, > the polaroid 4000 Sprintscan/ Jerry, You fall into these absolutes. Your brain seems to function in a binary fashion. 0 or 1, yes or no, black or white. In life, there are many balck or white issues, but I think there are many more gray area issues. There really is no "standard" scan resolution. Whether 1600dpi is enough for DA or not depends on what his purposes are. A 1600dpi scan of a 35mm frame will roughly yield a 1500x2270 pixel image. I have clients that buy 1024x1280 pixel images captured by my digital camera and printed at 8x10 inches. Are they tack sharp? No. Are they pleasing portraits? Absolutely. A 35mm frame scanned at 1600 dpi will yield sharper results than a digital camera that captures images at the same dimensions, let alone fewer pixels. Such a scan appropriate upsampled and moderately sharpened can yield high quality 8x10s. Note, the term "high quality" is by nature very subjective. I own the lowly original HP Photosmart film scanner which tops out at 2400dpi. Yet, I have a lot of 16x20s hanging up in many living rooms. I've desperately wanted to upgrade to a higher resolution Minolta, Nikon, or Polaroid. But I can't justify it (I've thought of dropping it to break it, thus giving me justification) because my prints (both small and large) sourced from Photosmart scans of 35mm color negatives, keeps producing results. Clients continue to be thrilled. So whether it's enough or not depends entirely on application, expectations, and requirements. > > Jerry > > "D. A. Saunders" wrote: > > > > Dear Mike, > > > > Very well put. It'll sound dramatic but when I saw the postings > > regarding the > > new scanner my eyes were practically popping out of my head with > > excitement. Printer, scanner, they are so interconnected. > > I am very curious, as "field reports" start to filter in, how good > > they are for > > 35mm? Does anyone have feedback on this? > > I don't have the budget for both a MF scanner and a dedicated one and > > have > > not been able to make a purchase decision because of the various sacrifices > > necessary in order to keep within a certain budget. It would be wonderful > > if this > > scanner could solve enough of those issues to make it a good purchase > decision. > > > > Sincerely, > > D.A. Saunders > > > > At 09:50 AM 01/06/2000 -0800, you wrote: > > >[SNIP] The point is you can't seperate image capture from printing. It is > > >an integral part of > > >the printing process. [SNIP] > > > > - > > 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. > ===== Visit my digital photography web site along with a lot of other interesting stuff at http://greer.simplenet.com. Also, Greer and Associates (http://www.greeraa.com) offers studio photography, digital imaging services, web site design/construction, and training. Mike Greer __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users