Re: filmscanners: Lamda, resolution + poor service

["Kah Heng, Tan" <kahheng@pacific.net.sg>]

At 03:39 PM 5/30/01 -0700, you wrote:
>Update on trying to get a good Lamda print done:
>
>Went to a repro lab recommended by Fuji, and after carefully explaining what
>I wanted from them - highest quality, finest detail and optimum resolution
>from my 5x7 inch negative, to output a 45" print, I came back the next day
>to be shown a 37Mb file...  (from their $25,000 Scitex)

Is that even a drum scanner? Sounds very much like a high-end flatbed?

>I asked the operator to show me a histogram of the image and he didn't know
>what that was!

Not surprising actually. A lot of the people actually doing the operation 
of these equipment are actually very poorly trained/qualified - at least 
true where I am. I get the same problem with not just the labs, but with 
the prepress people here as well. It's hard not to call them morons, but 
then, a lot has to do with the management's willingness to spend money to 
train them.


>He then assured me that it would scale (interpolate) up to a 45" print at
>400 dpi with "barely any loss of quality"
>when I expressed dismay and asked why I had to accept interpolated pixels on
>their $300,000 Lamda machine output, rather than using the ample real
>pixels,,  I have on my neg, (or at least every other pixel being real) I was
>told, sheepishly, that big files clog up the machines memory, and the other
>operators get upset at their jobs being queued.

Sounds like they are an outfit more concerned with churning out high 
volume/low-mid range quality work for the average commercial jobs.


>Can anyone suggest a way out of this?
>Obviously I can't buy a Lamda, so what can you do to get quality in this
>situation?

Go look for another shop if you can.


>pg